Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

STEVENAGE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BILL. (By Order.)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 13 March.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL. (By Order.)

LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL. (By Order.)

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL. (By Order.)

DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords]. (By Order.)

TYNE AND WEAR BILL [Lords]. (By Order.)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 20 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Constitutional Conference

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the progress of the constitutional conference on Northern Ireland.

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on his constitutional discussions with political parties in the Province.

Dr. Mawhinney: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the constitutional conference currently being held at Stormont.

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made with the talks on the future administration of Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): Since I last reported to the House the conference has met on 11 occasions, making a total of 28 half-day sessions to date. The conference has been engaged in detailed discussion of matters central to its task. It has completed a careful examination of how a devolved administration might operate and has discussed the crucial question of the role of minorities within a new system. There remains a substantial amount of ground to cover and it is too early to indicate when the conference will conclude its work or what level of agreement will materialise. I have gained a deeper understanding of the viewpoints of the parties at the conference and they have similarly gained a better understanding of each other's point of view. All the participants have continued to demonstrate their commitment to the task of the conference, and I remain convinced that it will contribute to political advance in Northern Ireland.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

Mr. Canavan: Despite the non cooperation of the Official Unionist Party and the die-hard weekend speeches of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will the Secretary of State give a categoric assurance that any form of devolved assembly for Northern Ireland will not simply be a resurrection of the old Stormont system which helped to cause many of the injustices in Northern Ireland, which in turn helped to bring about the emergence of violence in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Atkins: Without commenting on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's observation I can give the categoric assurance he asks for. It is clearly spelt out in paragraph (4) of the Government's working paper which the conference is discussing that the Government are not contemplating a return to the arrangements which prevailed before 1972.

Mr. Latham: While nobody would expect particularly rapid progress on a matter that has been going on since the reign of King Henry II—let alone more controversial monarchs of the seventeenth century—will my right hon. Friend say that sooner or later this matter will have to be brought to a conclusion and that a full statement will be made to the House of Commons?

Mr. Atkins: Yes, Sir. We are engaged in the process of seeking agreement about how to proceed. It is the firm belief of the Government that we ought to proceed and that the existing arrangements are not satisfactory. We wish to advance. Of course the House of Commons will be brought into the consideration of these matters at every stage because in the end it is Parliament that will decide the future arrangements in Northern Ireland.

Dr. Mawhinney: A number of people who are not part of the constitutional conference have made suggestions about the future of Northern Ireland. What would be the attitude of the Secretary of State should any of the parties to the conference wish to invite someone to come along and speak to a proposal that had been made?

Mr. Atkins: Among the people who have produced ideas for the considera-

tion of the conference is my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) and I and the other parties to the conference are grateful to him for the trouble that he has taken and for the paper that he has submitted. As he requested, his paper has been placed before the conference but the conference has not so far thought it necessary or right to invite people to come and speak to their papers. This is something that the conference will be considering during the next few weeks.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that he still has the good will of Liberal Members who hope that the talks will be a success? Is he further aware that I agree with the article on qualified majority by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) which appeared in The Guardian? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government do not intend to continue with direct rule for longer than necessary?

Mr. Atkins: The answer to the last question is "Yes, Sir." I am grateful for the continued support of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). I agree that the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) is valuable.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: During the Secretary of State's long periods of boredom and frustration as he presides over the time-wasting conference will he find time to reflect that for the protection of minorities and for the securing of powersharing no instrument has been devised which compares with the House of Commons?

Mr. Atkins: The right hon. Member is wrong in thinking that the conference is time-wasting. It is far from time-wasting. It is addressing itself seriously to difficult questions. I note the right hon. Gentleman's view about the way in which we operate here. I hope that he will come to the conference table and argue that view.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State has given an assurance to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) about paragraph (4) of the working paper. Will he assure the House that a revival of the system which obtained in the first five months of 1974 is


not under consideration by the Government nor being discussed at the conference?

Mr. Atkins: Yes, Sir. Paragraph (4) of the paper contains that assurance. I remind the hon. Gentleman of paragraph (5) of the working paper which states that arrangements must be acceptable to both sides of the community.

Mr. Fitt: While I totally reject the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) may I ask the Secretary of State to accept that many people of good will in Northern Ireland and in the House of Commons have deliberately refrained from making any comment on the conference on the ground that that might jeopardise the result? Does he agree that everyone in Northern Ireland recognises that to continue the conference is nothing more than a charade? Is it not evident that no agreement will be reached at the conference? Does he agree that the sooner the House has an opportunity to debate what has or what has not happened the better so that we can inform the people of the United Kingdom what a charade the conference is?

Mr. Atkins: I cannot agree that the conference is a charade. It is nothing of the kind. I note the request for a debate in the House. I shall ensure that the attention of the Leader of the House is drawn to it. There is still a certain amount to do in the conference. We have not yet completed our agenda. Many important matters have still to be considered. It would not be right to bring the conference to an end now.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is the Secretary of State aware of the growing concern and anger in Northern Ireland because the promised security initiative is being deliberately held up by the Government as a result of the constitutional conference, which has been dead for a considerable time? Does he agree that it is time that the Government did something to destroy the Provisional IRA, which the Prime Minister promised to do on her two visits to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Atkins: There is a question about security later on the Order Paper and I shall answer that question then. The conference is not dead. Those who attend it are very much alive.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall call one more hon. Member from either side to ask a supplementary question before calling the Front Bench spokesman.

Mr. Flannery: Although the vast majority of the ordinary people in Northern Ireland want peace and an agreement of some kind that will make their lives bearable, is it not the case that the conference has been rendered useless by the Official Unionist Party, which has openly mocked the conference, and by the DUP's intransigent attitude? May we have a debate in the House because we all know that the conference will produce no useful results?

Mr. Atkins: I shall draw the request for a debate to the attention of the Leader of the House. The conference discussions on Northern Ireland, are not easy. Nobody ever expected them to be. I did not expect a solution to be found quickly or for the problems to be solved in the twinkling of an eye. That is no reason not to explore possible ways of advancing politically with the political leaders in the Province.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: What other important matters has the conference not yet discussed? What timetable does the Secretary of State have in mind for the extent of the conference and for the Government's deliberations on what may or may not come out of it?

Mr. Atkins: We have yet to discuss how we determine the acceptability of arrangements which may be agreed. We must also discuss a number of financial arrangements. One newspaper thought that that involved how much members of a new assembly would be paid. That is not correct. That item covers how the financial arrangements of the Province might be dealt with by a new assembly. A number of other items of importance remain to be discussed.
We have never been definite about a timetable. I am not definite now. In January I said that by Easter it might be appropriate to reflect on everything that has happened. I am not sure that we shall meet that target. However, since there is no fixed timetable, that does not matter. We want to discuss among ourselves the important matters as long as it is useful to do so—but no longer.

Mr. John: Will the Secretary of State use the opportunity to consult more widely in the Province on the constitutional future of Northern Ireland in order to involve some bodies which are not participating in the talks? Will he report to the House before the Government's hard proposals are known and when the proposals still have green edges? Will he report to the House on the basis of maximum information about what has happened at the conference?

Mr. Atkins: It is important for the House to be brought into the discussion. I am not sure that the phrase "green edges" will go down well with everybody. However, I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says in a parliamentary sense. I am anxious to take the House with us on this issue. The hon. Member asked about wider consultation. I have already held meetings with people who were not invited to the conference. It is important to include more than the four invited parties.

Elderly Persons

Mr. Bradford: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has future plans to increase the number of geriatric beds and places in old people's homes in Belfast.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): Yes, Sir. Plans are in hand to increase the number both of hospital beds and of residential places for the care of the elderly in Belfast.

Mr. Bradford: I am grateful to the Minister for that encouraging answer. Does he accept that, whatever other section of the Northern Ireland community is affected by the Government's financial cuts, those who are geriatric or disoriented and who cannot advance their own cause should not be affected? Will the Minister consider using Malone Place hospital—which used to be a gynaecological unit—for geriatric patients?

Mr. Alison: In the next year or two we plan to increase substantially the number of beds available to that category of patient. I shall reflect upon what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Pendry: Does the Minister accept that the problem involves not only

the number of beds but adequate staff and facilities? While I congratulate the Minister on his small announcement, may I ask him to explain to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) that the consequence of supporting the Government on the vote of confidence recently has been precisely to limit the amount of help that can be given to the elderly in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) was very wise to support the Government in the vote the other night. The Government's intentions and plans do not incorporate any cuts in the provisions of health services in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I am sure that the Minister is aware that many people will be grateful to him for his answer. Could he be a little more specific and give us an indication of the number of extra beds he has planned and say whether there are any planned for East Belfast?

Mr. Alison: I have quite a collection of figures here. I believe that it would be more convenient if I were to set them out either in a written answer, if the hon. Gentleman cares to table a question, or write to him about this. However, two 72-bed geriatric units of the Ulster hospital will be completed this year.

Mr. Haynes: I feel that I have been here before. The statement made by the Minister has been made regularly—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That may well be so. I know that the hon. Gentleman is about to come to the question, but we are in a hurry.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that statements of that kind on provision for the elderly have been made regularly in the House by successive Conservative Governments? Is the Minister being truthful in what he is saying, bearing in mind what has been said and what has happened?

Mr. Alison: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the answer I have given is very truthful. If he will come to the House again I shall be able to inform him of the actual completion of the units that we are talking about.

De Lorean Company

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the purpose and amount of additional financial assistance currently sought by the De Lorean Company from public funds; and if he will take steps to ensure that no such request is approved without the prior approval of Parliament.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Giles Shaw): Under the terms of the agreement between the Department of Commerce and the company, entered into by the previous Administration in August 1978, the company is required to approach the Department about any additional funding needed for reasons outside the company's control. Accordingly, the De Lorean company has approached the Government and, although for reasons of commercial confidentiality I cannot disclose details of the request, I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall examine this application most rigorously and critically before a decision is taken.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is not my hon. Friend aware that there are many Government Members and, I suspect, one or two Opposition Members, who had lived in hope that one of the first actions of the Secretary of State would have been to demolish this piece of masonry from the foundations upwards? Before we lay on any extra saunas, sun-parlours, or anythink else, for this extraordinary affair, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that up to now responsibility has rested soley with the Labour Party? We should not contemplate landing ourselves with some measure of responsibility for it. May the House have an opportunity to discuss this matter before any further funds are committed?

Mr. Shaw: As my hon. Friend knows, and as I have told the House on several occasions, the Government inherited an agreement and an arrangement which they now have a duty to honour. There can be no other way of proceeding with an industrial development policy, which is of such critical importance to Northern Ireland, than on the basis of the truthful acceptance of the situation as laid down in a binding agreement. I fully understand my hon. Friend's anxiety, but we have no intention of, as he puts it, dem-

olishing this enterprise. It is our firm conviction that with effort and good will on all sides, we shall make the operation successful.

Mr. Concannon: Could the Minister add just one sentence? What is the rate of unemployment in the area where this factory will be situated?

Mr. Shaw: As the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) will know, the rate of unemployment in the Belfast area is now about 11·6 per cent. If this project is completed we hope that about 2,000 jobs will be created.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister take it from me that, no matter what criticisms have been made of this project, it would be in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland for it to succeed? Will he confirm that this application is not for any advance in the project but is prompted by inflation rates? Is the amount in question in the region of £5·6 million, which is the amount to which I drew the Minister's attention at our last Question Time?

Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, and the support that he gives to this project. As he will understand, I am not prepared to disclose the amount for which application has been made. However, I can affirm that under the terms of the agreement, matters of costs outside the Company's control include both inflation and currency fluctuations.

Mr. Fitt: Will the Minister accept that one of the main reasons why the previous Government undertook to involve themselves with this company was the terrible scourge of unemployment in the immediate area surrounding West Belfast? Undertakings were given that the Government would set up training procedures so that people who had suffered longterm unemployment could acquire the necessary skills to enable them to find employment in this establishment. Is he further aware that there is a great deal of disquiet about the fact—this is confirmed in a letter I received last week from the Minister—that it is to be the policy of this company to employ people who already have skills, which means that the long-term unemployed will have no chance of obtaining employment?

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has received a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister of State about the unemployment problems in that area. I wish only to confirm that the policy of the company is to seek workers who are fitted for the employment that is offered. There are substantial training facilities available and everybody from the West Belfast area, or any other area, should apply as jobs are being advertised currently.

Mr. Pendry: Will the Minister go further and join me in congratulating De Lorean on overcoming many of its initial problems and obtaining 42,000 advance orders? Nevertheless, and following on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said, will the Minister reaffirm the commitment of successive Governments that one of the prime objectives of the project is to mitigate the high level of unemployment in West Belfast? Will the Minister declare that there will be no backsliding on this issue and so inform the House now? Will the Minister also join me in requesting that the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) should take a holiday from his characteristically unhelpful criticism of this project? Thirdly, will the Minister agree that when the Prime Minister described the hon. Member for Knutsford as potential Cabinet material she was merely making one more serious miscalculation?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that supplementary questions are getting longer and longer. There were three or four supplementary questions there.

Mr. Shaw: I obviously applaud the efforts made by the De Lorean company to make this project succeed. I recognise that the company will draw substantially on labour from West Belfast. We have been as good as our word by bringing to West Belfast several important new investment projects in recent months, including 450 potential jobs in a trim company with which De Lorean will be associated. As regards my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), the hon. Member for Pudsey is willing to take very fast rising balls outside the off stump any day of the week.

Mr. Cryer: rose—

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the nature of my hon. Friend's replies, I shall raise this matter again on every possible opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: I gather that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) wants to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Cryer: indicated assent.

Taoiseach (Meeting)

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when next he expects to meet the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Kilfedder: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends next to meet the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Molyneaux: I welcome that answer from the Secretary of State. Despite Mr. Haughey's decision to postpone his threat to use his diplomatic services to blackmail Her Majesty's Government, will the Secretary of State assert that the internal affairs of the United Kingdom are the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government alone and are subject to no external influence?

Mr. Atkins: I repeat what I have said many times before. The affairs of Northern Ireland are for Her Majesty's Government, the House and the people of Northern Ireland alone.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is it correct that Mr. Haughey informed the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister of the contents of the speech that he delivered recently to his party conference before he made that speech? Do the Government intend to counter the rabid publicity and propaganda campaign that Mr. Haughey has announced and ensure that British embassies throughout the world expose the hypocrisy of the Republic, which refuses to extradite wanted men to the United Kingdom?

Mr. Atkins: I do not know about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but Mr. Haughey did not tell me about his speech. The hon. Gentleman speaks of a publicity effort. It is the business of embassies and our representation abroad


to do their best to present the true facts about the United Kingdom, including the Province of Northern Ireland, and this they do, I hope, successfully.

Mr. Stallard: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his plans and seek an early meeting with the Prime Minister of the Republic to discuss a possible extension of the areas of common interest that exist between the two parts of the island of Ireland—I have in mind interests such as transport, water supply, electricity, tourism, sport, agriculture and culture—and perhaps move some way towards reconciliation between the two parts?

Mr. Atkins: I do not need to involve the Taoiseach in that. There is well established machinery for dealing with such matters. There are consultative committees and groups that meet to discuss matters of common interest that have a cross-border connotation. That work has been going on for many years and it continues. If it is necessary to invoke the assistance of the Government of the Republic to make it go better and faster, I shall do so.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Prime Minister the welcome that was given in Northern Ireland to her retort to Mr. Haughey's claim of jurisdiction over Northern Ireland and her assertion that that would not be changed without the consent of the majority of the people of Ulster?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to convey that personally in about 15 minutes.

Extradition

Mr. Wm. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions during the last five years the Royal Ulster Constabulary has sought the extradition of persons from the Irish Republic in connection with explosions, murders and attempted murders in Northern Ireland: and on how many occasions these extradition requests have been granted.

Mr. Alison: Between 1 January 1975 and 31 December 1979 the RUC sent a total of 17 warrants to the Garda seeking the extradition of persons for the offences in question. Two of these persons have been extradited.

Mr. Ross: Are there not many more persons now resident in the Republic whom the RUC would like to interview? Is it a fact that the RUC has not made extradition requests in all cases where it was possible to do so? Why has it not done so, since the failure of the South to extradite murderers would expose it to public ridicule, which it richly deserves?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are a number of reasons why extradition might not be sought. One reason is uncertainty about where the wanted man might be. It is not always certain that he is to be found in the Republic. There are occasions when the known practice of the Government in the Republic, in the light of their own High Court procedures, makes it obviously pointless even to try to secure extradition.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Although it is second-best to extradition, will my hon. Friend tell the House what progress is being made with cases brought under the criminal jurisdiction legislation?

Mr. Alison: We have successfully brought two prosecutions under the so-called extra-territorial legislation. My hon. Friend will know that that can apply only to cases relating to offences committed after 1 June 1976.

Mr. John: The Secretary of State recently said that three more cases were being taken under that legislation. What is the position in those cases? When are the prosecutions likely to be brought?

Mr. Alison: All the facts and papers have been sent to the authorities in the Republic. I cannot say when the cases will come forward. We have no reason to believe that there will be any untoward delay in the cases being brought to trial.

Unemployment

Mr. McCusker: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will state the level of unemployment in Northern Ireland on 1 March 1980.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Hugh Rossi): The level of unemployment in Northern Ireland on 14 February 1980, the latest date for which information is available, was 11·6 per cent.

Mr. McCusker: Will the Minister confirm that the unemployment level is the worst since 1930? Does he agree that if a Unionist Administration at Stormont were presiding over these figures it would be the butt of ridicule from both sides of the Chamber? What does the hon. Gentleman intend to do over the next few months to rectify the situation?

Mr. Rossi: They are not the worst figures since 1930, but they are still unacceptably high. The hon. Gentleman will know that there has been a gradual and consistent increase in unemployment since 1974—when there were about 27,000 unemployed—to 64,000 in 1978. Unemployment was stabilised in 1979. Since then there has been an increase which we find unacceptable. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has been working hard in inducing considerable new investment to come into the Province. Some 14 new firms have come to the Province in the past year or so, providing about 4,600 new manufacturing jobs in 1979. Recently 2,825 jobs were announced for this year. LEDU has established 1,330 jobs in small firms.

Mr. Freeson: Will the Minister recognise that, according to figures quoted to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras North (Mr. Stallard) in early February, during the previous Question Time devoted to Northern Ireland, the statistics have risen in some areas to 23 to 26 per cent? In view of the high and growing rate of unemployment in the Province, does he agree that there is an even greater need to embark upon the functional co-operation on economic matters to which attention has already been drawn? Does he accept that there is a need to get together with the Republic to ascertain what investment may be jointly undertaken in terms of development projects between the two countries?

Mr. Rossi: The right hon. Gentleman is right. There are some small pockets of extremely high unemployment. In Cookstown, for example, the level is 24·1 per cent. That is the highest level at present. It is a level that we find unacceptable. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that discussions on economic matters are proceeding the whole time with the Government of the Republic of

Ireland to ascertain what joint effort can do to improve the unemployment figures. However, we are being successful in bringing in new industry by consistently employing in Northern Ireland the highest incentives that exist in the United Kingdom.

Mr. John: The Minister has quoted the job attraction figures, but he has not said that 4,600 redundancies have occurred within the past two months. Job attraction spreads over a much longer period. What does he intend to do to counter that loss? Is he aware that it is said by one economic analyst in the Province that if the loss is extrapolated it will lead to a minimum unemployment rate of 14 per cent. within the next year?

Mr. Rossi: The redundancy figures have remained constant annually for the past three years. However, there was an increase in total jobs of 10,000 from June 1978 until June 1979. The problem is the increase in the size of the labour force. Bearing in mind the security problem in Northern Ireland, it becomes more and more difficult, even with great financial incentives, to attract new investments into the Province.

Terrorism (Propaganda)

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he proposes to take to control Irish Republican Army propaganda; and what estimate he has made of the value of propaganda by terrorist organisations.

Mr. Alison: In a democratic society the free expression of views by individuals or groups is a fundamental freedom. The Government do not believe in censorship and we shall continue to rely on the responsibility and sensitivity of the media in the reporting of events.
The value of propaganda by terrorist or other organisations is very difficult if not impossible to assess. But deeds speak louder than words, and the vast majority of Northern Ireland citizens, whatever their background, reject and abhor the methods of murder and violence which the terrorists use and seek to justify by means of propaganda.

Mr. Marlow: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that when the IRA claims responsibility for a particularly barbarous and brutal act, it likes to hear it reported


over the radio that it has claimed responsibility because it gives it almost a legitimacy and respectability as an organisation, as opposed to the band of murderers and thugs that it is?

Mr. Alison: I disagree with my hon. Friend on that point. To be identified publicly with an event such as the La Mon massacre is to be identified with the worst possible type of rejection of humanity and the worst possible type of bestial brutality. It does that group far more harm than good.

Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Minister take seriously the suggestion that terrorist organisations have infiltrated certain elements of the press and broadcasting services? Is it not reflected in the recording?

Mr. Alison: I cannot answer such a question without more solid evidence than can be adduced in a question and answer period in the House. However, if the hon. Gentleman wishes privately to give me some factual evidence which can be added to the routine investigations that the security forces undertake in all areas of sensitivity we shall consider it carefully.

Security

Mr. Peter Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland; and if he considers that there has been any improvement since 3 May of last year.

Mr. Trippier: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: Since I last addressed the House on 7 February, 38 people have been charged with terrorist-type offences, including nine with murder and three with attempted murder. Of these, four persons have been charged in connection with the attempt to bomb a Belfast bank on 15 February, and three persons have been charged with the murder of a man in Belfast last Friday. During that period the security forces also seized 2,508 rounds of ammunition and 14 weapons. Two members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary were killed in Rosslea on 11 February. Three

civilians have been shot dead since 7 February, one of them following a cold-blooded kidnapping; and a young boy has died after being struck by a missile during the stoning of an Army vehicle by a crowd of youths. During last weekend 44 buses were destroyed or damaged in terrorist attacks on bus depots in Belfast and Newry, and on Monday, 8 explosive devices exploded outside business premises in the main street of Maghera, causing extensive damage to two premises. In addition, I regret to tell the House that about two hours ago the body of a man was found in County Armagh, near the border. Full details are not yet available. I am waiting for a detailed report.
As for the second part of the question put by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) the number of deaths sustained as a result of terrorist activity in the period from last May to February this year has increased. On the other hand, there has been a substantial reduction in the level of injuries, and in the number of explosions. But statistics give a very partial picture. The IRA is more isolated than ever from the sympathy, let alone the support, of ordinary people. I do not pretend that the end of terrorism is in sight, but I believe that we are making progress.

Mr. Robinson: Does the Secretary of State not agree that those details are totally unacceptable? Does he further agree that, if anything, they point solely to the fact that his whole security policy must be reviewed? Does he remember that when he spoke to the House on 7 February, he gave an undertaking that he was reviewing security policy in relation to public transport? In his statement he said that considerable damage has been done in that sphere. Will he review the security arrangements for public transport once again?

Mr. Atkins: The Government's security policy was the subject of debate just before Christmas. It was supported by the House. It is, of course, under continual review. We are constantly seeking ways of making it more effective. A review takes place not once a month, but all the time.
As regards public transport, at that time we were discussing three deaths that had occurred on a train. Although I very


much regret, as we all do, that buses have been damaged and destroyed in a bus depot, it is some comfort that no one was killed.

Mr. Trippier: I have read with interest the recent speeches of the GOC and the Chief Constable. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the level of cooperation between the Army and the RUC?

Mr. Atkins: Yes, Sir. The Chief Constable and the GOC work closely together. As my hon. Friend has said, each of them made a speech about a fortnight ago. I think that the GOC used the phrase:
the Chief Constable's and my mind work as one".
That can be only beneficial.

Mr. McCusker: Will the Secretary of State accept that the body lying at the border today is that of Mr. Harry Livingstone? He was a decent, hardworking young man. He was a pillar of the local community and a former member of the UDR. No doubt he was murdered by the IRA. His murderer is probably now celebrating in a pub in the Republic. Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept that Mr. Livingstone was a personal friend of mine? It is typical of the situation in which he lived, that when I last talked to him he was attending the funeral of one of his colleagues who had been murdered in similar circumstances. How can political progress, or any other progress, be made in Northern Ireland if those people have to live in such circumstances, and have to meet their deaths whenever the IRA so chooses?

Mr. Atkins: I am very sad that the man who has been killed was a friend of the hon. Gentleman. I think that he has more information than me at his disposal. He knows more about the identity and history of the man. He knows more also about his killers. I do not have that information at the moment. Naturally, we shall follow up the incident with the greatest care. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information.
Any death by terrorist activity is one too many. We continually strive to reduce the number of deaths. I know that the hon. Gentleman realises that it is impossible to provide round-the-clock protection for everyone in Northern Ireland. I know that the efforts that we are making

will bring about a gradual decrease in terrorist activity. I hope that one day those activities will be reduced to such a level that they will no longer be a menace to anyone.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 March.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I shall give a reception for representatives of British industry.

Mr. Townsend: Will my right hon. Friend find time to comment on the dismal performance of Sir Denis Follows yesterday before the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs? Will she consider in particular his comment to the effect that he could better judge the interests of the British people than their Parliament? On the day when Afghanistan faces further savage repression will my right hon. Friend remind us of how many other countries have agreed to boycott the Olympic Games in Moscow this summer?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I read the reports in the press. I was astonished at what Sir Denis Follows is reported to have said. As regards his remark about Parliament, I think that we are the best judges of that. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will find time for a debate so that our views may be made known.
Secondly, I expressed my views to Sir Denis Follows in no uncertain way in a letter that I wrote to him. That letter has been published. I told him that the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan meant that:
for British athletes to take part in the Games in Moscow this summer would be for them to seem to condone an international crime."— [Official Report, 21 February 1980; Vol. 979, col. 274.]
Thirdly, an increasing number of countries think that it would be totally inappropriate for their athletes to attend the Moscow Games.

Mr. Race: During the day will the Prime Minister have a word with her right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerning his forthcoming Budget? Will she remind him that, unless he takes serious action to assist the plight of the lowly-paid, her Government may face a winter of discontent that will make the last one look like a vicarage tea-party?

The Prime Minister: Whatever problems we may have had this winter, they have been but a pale shadow of those that were faced last winter. Of course my right hon. and learned Friend is closely considering the Budget. He is receiving many representations and no doubt he will take the hon. Gentleman's suggestion into account.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend find time during her busy day to reflect on the present sad state of Anglo-French relations? Does she accept that whatever difficulties individual departmental Ministers may have in resolving their problems with the French, she has responsibility for maintaining and asserting the fundamental identity of interest between this country and France in all those things that really matter, such as foreign affairs and defence?

The Prime Minister: With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that I would fully accept the premise that underlies his question. Relations between us are good. There is a disagreement about budget contributions. We think that we should not pay as much to the European budget as the French pay. Certainly we are paying a lot more at present. There is also disagreement over the sheepmeat issue. However, apart from those two matters, we still work in close co-operation within the European framework and bilateral relations.

Mr. Bidwell: Will the right hon. Lady reflect further on the progressive developments in Zimbabwe? Is she aware of the press reports that there may be up to 60,000 white people leaving Rhodesia to come to this country in consequence of developments? Will she prevail on the Governor, Lord Soames, to persuade the white population to stay put and give a chance to a multi-racial society in that part of the world to make progress?

The Prime Minister: With respect, it is far too soon to make any further comments on what is happening in Zimbabwe. As far as I can see, reports coming out about the formation of a Government, which would include the other wing of the Patriotic Front and representatives of the white community, are good. I have every hope and reason to believe that the arrangements will go ahead in a spirit of reconciliation and hope for the future.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: May I draw the Prime Minister's attention to a small but significant harbinger of industrial spring? Is she aware that a firm in my constituency, Lewmar Marine, operating in one of the world's most competitive environments, has achieved the unique distinction of supplying its winches to both the British and American contender for the America Cup? Does she agree that that presents a refreshing contrast to the administrative disruption threatened by the Society of Civil and Public Servants this morning?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear of the success of the firm in my hon. Friend's constituency. Had I known of it, I would have invited members of that firm to join us for a drink this evening.

Mr. Beith: asked the Prime Minister if she list her official engagements for Thursday 6 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I have just given.

Mr. Beith: Does the right hon. Lady have time today to see her Fisheries Ministers? Is she aware that the industry has been led by them to expect that the Government will act soon over the crisis that the industry faces through subsidised competition, high oil prices and the Common Market fisheries policy? Will she take the opportunity soon to make an announcement, for the industrys benefit.

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. and hon. Friends are constantly in touch with the fishing industry. They are doing their best to reach agreement both in Europe and with the fishing industry on the best way forward. We have every sympathy with the fishermen in the difficulties that they face.

Mr. Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the addition of 850,000


employees to local government payrolls over the past 20 years has not resulted in a proportionate increase in the quality or quantity of services to the general public? Will my right hon. Friend therefore take time to consider how to reduce public expenditure in that sector without a disproportionate effect on front-line services?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The improvement in services has nothing like matched the increase in the number of staff. In many cases equally good services could be achieved with substantially fewer staff. I hope that local authorities will take full note of what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the Prime Minister take time to recall the piece in the Conservative manifesto that talked of restoring to every child, regardless of background, the right to progress as far as his or her capabilities would allow? In view of that objective, how does she explain the philistine destruction of education in Scotland, with the removal of school meals and transport, and the 25 per cent. cut in the BBC education broadcasts, which will be 100 per cent. next year?

The Prime Minister: I fully reaffirm that objective. If I may respectfully say so, there is someone standing at this Dispatch Box who is an example of it.
When we consulted local authorities about the future of education, they made it clear that they would prefer to make economies in school meals and transport services rather than in the classroom. We have followed that principle. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman says about the BBC, it will of course, have to live within its budget. I believe that the new television licence is £34, which seems quite high to some of us. It is for the BBC to decide where it makes economies. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be pretty robust in what he says to the BBC about that matter.

Mr. Watson: Has the Prime Minister had a chance to notice that the clearing banks have announced a level of profits that is really very high? Does my right hon. Friend agree that these are essentially windfall profits and should be taxed accordingly?

The Prime Minister: I have noticed what is happening to bank profits. Indeed, I have previously commented on them from this Dispatch Box. I pointed out that the tendency is for bank profits to be high when times are bad for others and a good deal lower when times are good for others.
I must leave aside any question of taxation. We shall be giving our minds to that on 26 March.

Mr. James Callaghan: If the problem is that times are bad, as the Prime Minister says, will she in her message of encouragement to the Conservative candidate for Southend, East, explain why company insolvencies and personal bankruptcies are increasing so rapidly?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may wish me to communicate certain matters to my candidate, but may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, whatever times may be like this year, the figures published indicate that car production this February exceeds that for last February?

Mr. Callaghan: I am sure that we are all happy to hear that car production is increasing rapidly, but will the right hon. Lady accept that if there is a rapidly increasing number of company insolvencies and personal bankruptcies people will not be able to buy those cars? Will the right hon. Lady answer my question whether she proposes to explain that to her candidate?

The Prime Minister: I propose to explain to my candidate what he very well knows—that there is only one way to try to bring inflation down, and that is the policy that we are pursuing. We should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman encouraged people not to ask for very high wages without extra production, which the right hon. Gentleman knows will only increase inflation and prices.

Mr. Callaghan: Is there any chance that the right hon. Lady will now answer my question?

The Prime Minister: I have answered it. Is there any chance that the right hon. Gentleman will ask for wages to be kept in line with productivity?

Mr. Alton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

Mr. Alton: Will the Prime Minister take time today to study the latest available figures for the number of crimes committed in the United Kingdom last year? Will she accept that 896,000 robberies and muggings took place at a time when 1½ million people were prosecuted for traffic offences? When will the Conservative Party promise in its manifesto to switch the emphasis from traffic offences to real crime be put into effect?

The Prime Minister: The police have a duty to see that the law is observed in both instances. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is endorsing the Conservative policy to increase pay to the police and do everything possible to increase recruitment.

Mr. Best: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), will my right hon. Friend take time today to study the survey into expenditure by local authorities commissioned by Sir Frank Marshall on behalf of the Conservative Party? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the knowledge that has been manifest through that survey that, while local authorities have been cutting services, they have not been cutting manpower to the same degree? Will my right hon. Friend continue to impress on local authorities that it is essential that services are maintained and bureaucracy cut wherever possible?

The Prime Minister: I have seen that survey and I agree that it reveals a disappointing state of affairs. It is all too easy for some local authorities to cut sensitive services, when they should be cutting the numbers employed in the administrative bureaucracy. I endorse everything that my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Will the Prime Minister tell the mill workers of Lancashire, who do not earn high wages, who are not militant and who do not make excessive wage demands, why hundreds and hundreds of them are losing their jobs, month after month?

The Prime Minister: May I say respectfully that I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman's assessment of those workers in that industry. Labour relations have been excellent and the workers have gladly accepted new technology and new machinery. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade who, as he knows, when faced with a difficult decision on carpet yarn, took action through Europe.

Mr. Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend agree that when the TUC tears up its guidelines on picketing in a fit of pique against the Employment Bill, it is only playing party politics? That is not the proper role of trade unions.

The Prime Minister: I had always thought that those guidelines on picketing properly reflected the criminal law as it stands. The criminal law is not being changed, so I trust that those guidelines will not be changed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. James Callaghan: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 10 MARCH—Supply [13th Allotted Day]: Until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate on the growing burden of owning or renting a house, and afterwards a debate on immigration. Both will arise on Opposition motions.
The Question will be put on all outstanding Supplementary Estimates and Votes.
Motion relating to the statement of changes in immigration rules.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Protection of Trading Interests Bill and to the Bees Bill.
TUESDAY 11 MARCH—Second Reading of the National Health Service (Invalid Direction) Bill.
Motions on the Representation of the People (Variation of Limits on Candidates' Election Expenses) Order and on the Deaconesses and Lay Workers (Pensions) Measure.
WEDNESDAY 12 MARCH—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
THURSDAY 13 MARCH—Remaining stages of the National Health Service (Invalid Direction) Bill.
Motions on the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order and on the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order.
FRIDAY 14 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 17 MARCH—Supply [14th Allotted Day]: Subject for debate to be announced.

Mr. Callaghan: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for putting down the National Health Service (Invalid Direction) Bill for two days next week in order to relieve the Minister of his unlawful actions, but is that not typical of the growing confusion of the Govern-

ment's legislative programme? Is he aware that apart from the current protests from another place, the Committee on the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill was adjourned half an hour early this morning by the Minister, who was unable to answer a straightforward question? It is a No. 2 Bill. As I understand it, it has been rewritten. The Minister was asked the simple question whether part VI of the Bill, which deals with the rate support grant, was to be proceeded with. He was unable to give an answer, and the Committee was adjourned.
I do not ever recall a Minister adjourning a Committee half an hour before time because of his inability to answer a question of that sort. I know that negotiations are under way, but will the Leader of the House please ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to tell the House whether the Government intend to amend the, No. 2 Bi11 again, or whether the Committee can proceed with its discussions on part VI of the Bill in the knowledge that it will go ahead?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sure that my right hon. Friend was acting perfectly correctly. It is encouraging that if a Minister is asked an important question he should ensure that an accurate answer is given. That seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that with regard to our legislative timetable the Bill is on schedule, and I trust that unless the Leader of the Opposition succeeds in adopting wrecking tactics Members will be able to rise for the Summer Recess at the normal time.

Mr. Callaghan: With regard to the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, a week ago the Committee was discussing clauses 11 and 12, and it has now reached clause 29. There have been no wrecking tactics and no filibustering on the Bill.
I do not know whether the Leader of the House is aware of the question that was put to the Minister. He was asked whether he could state whether part VI of the Bill was still Government policy. He should not have to go far in order to find that out.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I can answer that question. The Bill is Government policy,


and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it will reach the statute book on schedule.

Mr. Callaghan: In that case, why was the Minister not able to give that answer this morning? The Committee could then have proceeded.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Because he did not have the benefit of consulting with me.

Mr. David Steel: May I seek the benefit of consulting with the right hon. Gentleman? On Monday he has put down, to be debated after 10 o'clock, the prayer that stands in my name against the immigration rules. The Opposition have given up half a Supply day for a debate on the same subject. Would it not be for the benefit of the House to have one coherent debate lasting from 7 o'clock through to 11.30 pm? If that requires a technical motion on his part, will he take the necessary steps?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is an interesting suggestion. It is a matter for the official Opposition. If discussions were opened between the right hon. Gentleman and the official Opposition I would be happy to support a joint prayer.

Mr. Rippon: In view of the undoubted pressure on parliamentary time, will my right hon. Friend consider further the question of withdrawing the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill? The financial provisions as they are now drafted are unworkable, and are the subject of further discussion with the local authorities. The planning provisions are inadequate, and they should be in a separate Bill, and the provisions relating to the Urban Development Corporation manifestly should he in a Hybrid Bill, and are an example of what the Lord Chancellor described once as "elective dictatorship."—[Interruption.]

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to Labour Members for that enthusiastic reception. My right hon. and learned Friend is his normal, independent and robust self, but I assure him that it is the Government's intention to proceed with the Bill and to ensure that it is placed on the statute book.

Mr. Ennals: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that when there is such a heavy burden of legislation, and when

there are so many subjects that the House wishes and needs to debate, it is sad commentary on the competence of the Government that next week we have to spend two days in order to invalidate—or validate—an illegal action taken by one of his colleagues?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The right hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate. We are spending one and a half days on the subject, at the express request of the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Cormack: In view of the fairly high-level representations that have been made about the Olympic Games, could we have a debate on this matter during the week after next?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Prime Minister, in a gracious reference to me, has said that, subject to my permission, she thought that it would be a good idea to have a debate on the Olympic Games. I am happy to give that permission.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Leader of the House agree that it is time we had a debate on the problems of unemployment on Merseyside, particularly in the light of recent revelations that the Government have been fiddling the figures? Is he aware that calculations of the rate of unemployment on Merseyside are based on the assessment of the work force that existed in 1966, and therefore, instead of being 12 per cent. the figures are likely to be 14 per cent. or even 15 per cent? Is there not a need for a major debate on this serious issue?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I recognise the extremely serious unemployment problem of Merseyside and Liverpool. The Government have recognised that by concentrating their assisted area policy on the most needy areas, and they have offered Merseyside most enhanced benefits in the retention of special development area status. That is the best way to ensure that the problems of Merseyside are ameliorated.
On the question of a debate, I must point out that we had a debate yesterday, which was not particularly well attended. The problems of Merseyside are relevant to a general economic discussion.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: With reference to Monday's business, will my right hon.


Friend confirm that the House will be invited to approve the spring Supplementary Estimates? In view of the fact that these Estimates involve £850 million extra public expenditure, including £70 million to compensate two Departments for overspending their current year's cash limits, and in view of the importance that cash limits play in the restraint of public expenditure, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that it will be possible to debate these Supplementary Estimates before we are asked to approve them?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: These Supplementary Estimates, which will be taken on Monday, are always taken on a Supply day. It will be possible to debate them if the Opposition are prepared to devote time to them. Perhaps my hon. Friend could suggest that to the Opposition. If that is not feasible, it is possible to raise a number of these subjects on Wednesday, when the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill is before the House.

Mr. Ioan Evans: In view of the fact that the steel strike is now in its third month and that there are reports that canning factories that can fruit and vegetables are no longer in production and that the public industries are losing hundreds of millions of pounds, is it not time that the Government came to the House and made a statement that they intend to bring the dispute to a satisfactory conclusion?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is not Government policy to intervene in industrial disputes, which should be settled by the two sides involved. It is the Government's hope that the two sides will come to an agreement.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: As the Leader of the House has had the opportunity to familiarise himself with the importance of information technology since he opened the microelectronics exhibition at the Science Museum by proxy, may I ask him whether a debate on that subject is any nearer the end of his telescope?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot promise an early debate on that matter. I am much better informed on this subject, thanks to the reading that I did for the microchip exhibition, which I was not able to open. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the

seminar that he gave me on this subject and I shall do my best to avoid receiving another one.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Leader of the House aware that he seems to have missed a point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) in relation to the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, in so far as it affects rates in Newcastle upon Tyne? Since the Secretary of State for the Environment is more notoriously known for threatening this House with the symbol of its authority—the Mace—many of my constituents are very disturbed that they are now being threatened on the issue of the level of rates in Newcastle by that same Secretary of State.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That matter can be discussed during the various stages of the Bill. It is not strictly a business question.

Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend consider a short debate to decide whether the present system of Division bells could be improved by the addition of a system of individual bleepers?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That has been considered by the relevant Committee of the House, which recommended that such a course should not be followed. Obviously there would be considerable inconvenience if the bleepers went off in the Chamber.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the genuine concern felt on both sides of the House about the proposed BBC cuts involving the staffing of five orchestras, including the Scottish Symphony Orchestra, and the scrapping of education programmes north of the border? Will he arrange to discuss this vitally important topic?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have noted with anxiety the reports of decisions of the BBC, particularly those affecting the orchestras. I recognise that because of financial stringency the BBC must make a redistribution of its resources but the way in which it plans its programmes and spends its resources is a matter for the corporation itself.

Mr. Neubert: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will not give any time at all next week to the discussion of


early-day motion 490, since the reckless and ill-informed assertions in that motion could cause needless anxiety to millions of holidaymakers whose interests are amply safeguarded by £80 million worth of tour operators' bonds and a further £15 million in the Air Travel Reserve Fund?

[That this House is seriously concerned for the stability of the package-tour holiday industry, and the consequent effect upon British holiday-makers, because of the commitment of package tour operators to charter flight companies which will result in the bankruptcy of many package-tour operators; and urges the Secretary of State for Trade to take immediate action to avoid another disaster of the kind which overtook Court Line Ltd.]

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is not my intention to have an early debate on that motion on package tours. The Civil Aviation Authority has no reason to believe that tour operators will not be able to cover increased charges made by charter airlines from the limited surcharges that they can impose on their customers. One or two operators may have given a guarantee of no surcharges—

Mr. Michael Cocks: This is a plant.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is not a plant.

Mr. English: On a point of order Mr. Speaker, is it not the case that an hon. Member should declare his interest?

Mr. Neubert: It was my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that it was the convenience and convention of the House that interests should not be declared in asking questions. In any case, my travel industry background is well known both in the House and outside.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is quite correct. At Question Time it is not our convention to declare an interest.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: As I was saying, no doubt those operators will have included in their brochure prices some condition to cover potential increases in costs.
The Opposition are wrong in saying that it is an abuse of the House to answer a question. This is certainly not

a planted question. I had no idea that my hon. Friend was to raise this important matter. He was perfectly entitled to do so, and I have given a full answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is a plant."] It is not a plant, it is a tree.

Mr. Guy Barnett: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Secretary of State for the Environment gave a firm commitment to the House, and also to the local authority associations, that he would consider the alternative proposals of the local authority associations to part VI of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill? It is important to do that, but because of the good progress made by the Committee on the Bill it is impossible to consider the Government's proposals, because they are not firm. We cannot consider hypothetical proposals as part of Government legislation.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that the hon. Gentleman has slightly exaggerated the point. He is correct in saying that my right hon. Friend told the local authorities that he would reflect on their proposals. I shall be in communication with him in response to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman to make sure that any ambiguity is cleared up.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had intended to reserve this point of order to the end of questions, but the last question came back to the subject. In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has made three consecutive references to work in progress in a Standing Committee upstairs, would you, Mr. Speaker, be good enough to refresh the memory of the House and give it the benefit of your guidance on the question how far, if at all, it is in order to refer in detail to the proceedings of a Standing Committee before it has reported?

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The House is aware that until a Committee reports to us we do not discuss its activities upstairs. Passing references are entirely different, and I therefore allowed the extra latitude to the Leader of the Opposition that is traditional. It is not a matter that we can pursue at length on the Floor of the House.

Mr. James Callaghan: What we are questioning, and what I was questioning, is the progress of business. I have never understood this to be ruled out of order. The convention, I understand, is that discussion on the nature of the business upstairs has always been ruled out of order. I was questioning, and still question, the fact that a Minister adjourned a Committee early in rather exceptional circumstances. I want only to ask the Leader of the House, in view of the question that has been asked, whether we can now take it that the Bill can be proceeded with on the assumption that it is firm Government policy and that there is to be no response to the local authority associations, which have been putting up an alternative scheme.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Leader of the Opposition must not seek to lead me into pre-empting the rights and prerogatives of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Bill, as I have said, is Government policy. Because of the important point that has been raised, clearly, if I may say so, by the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, I shall approach the Secretary of State to see whether any clarification is needed.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to the point of order raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), may we take it that your ruling, Mr Speaker, applies also to the proceedings of Select Committees and would therefore be inconsistent with the detailed comment, earlier this afternoon, upon evidence tendered to a Select Committee?

Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In the case of the Select Committee, it is on Votes and Proceedings for yesterday, published today, that the minutes of the evidence taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee have been reported to the House. The House might as well know that it would not have been in order to discuss what happened in the Committee until it had reported to us.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I raised the subject of the plight of the textile industry with him in business questions last week?

Was he also present a few minutes ago, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered a question from the hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson)? My right hon. Friend admitted the tremendous problems facing this industry through no fault of its own. Will my right hon. Friend therefore announce to the House at an early date that he intends to find time for the House to debate one of our biggest and most strategically important industries and so enable hon. Members representing textile constituencies to advise the Government on what policy they believe the Government should follow, particularly in the implementation of selective import controls?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The answer to both parts of my hon. Friend's opening question is "Yes." I heard what the Prime Minister said. I am afraid that I cannot promise an early debate on what I recognise is an extremely important subject, but, together with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I shall once again draw the views of my hon. Friend to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.

Mr. Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence for an early statement on the near-miss between two jet aircraft and the Leeds-Glasgow passenger flight last Monday? The Ministry of Defence has apparently so far been unable to identify the two aircraft concerned. This has aroused a great deal of consternation. The question that arises is whether the aircraft should have been in that air space at all, and whether they were armed with ordinary or nuclear weapons. This is a serious matter. I ask for an early statement.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not know that I can promise the hon. Gentleman an early statement. I shall certainly raise this important matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and ask him to communicate with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend allow time for a debate in the near future on the European monetary system, particularly bearing in mind reports in today's newspapers that the Government are reconsidering the possibility that we shall enter that system? Does my right


hon. Friend agree that many right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House would like to express their distaste, first, for a system of fixed exchange rates and, secondly, for a system that might lead to a single European economy, which would be a denial of the sovereignty of the British people?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sure that there are a variety of views on those important and technically interesting questions. I cannot promise a separate debate on the EMS as such. No doubt my hon. Friend's views will be relevant to the debate on financial matters involving the Community in general, which I hope we shall have before long.

Mr. Shore: Further to that question, if the right hon. Gentleman consults the records he will find that he is already pledged to have a full debate in the House before any question of decision is reached on this important matter. If my memory is at fault—I hope it is not—I invite the right hon. Gentleman to give this pledge to the House. It is in the interests of all of us.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot remember myself, any more than the right hon. Gentleman can, the exact words. I shall certainly look at it. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, in principle, that we must have a debate on these important matters.

Mr. Farr: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is about to set up a second Standing Committee to deal with Private Members' Bills during the Session? What has been the result of his reflections over the last seven days in relation to the interesting possibility that another place might send back the Education (No. 2) Bill with clause 23 omitted?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The setting up of a second Standing Committee on Private Members' Bills was not at the forefront of my mind. I am interested to hear my hon. Friend's suggestion. With regard to the Education (No. 2) Bill in the House of Lords, it is the Government's intention to table an amendment there setting a limit to the number of children who might be charged for school transport, limiting it to the first two children.

Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some time to considering how the House might debate the Finniston report on engineering? The other place has already had an opportunity to give its views on the report prior to the Government finalising consultations.
In view of the fact that the Minister directly responsible is sitting on the Front Bench at the present time, and in view of the critical state of the shipbuilding industry, displayed today by reports in the press, and the attitude particularly of the civil servants in charge of that industry, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give some time in the House to debate the future of that industry?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I agree entirely that the Finniston report is of major importance to our industrial future. It is true that we have to revalue the place of engineering in our economy if we are to compete successfully in the industrial world. A whole series of discussions are now going on between my hon. Friend and representatives of industry and engineering. As soon as those discussions are completed, that would be the moment to consider a debate.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend confirm what I believe I heard him say a few minutes ago, namely, that there will be a debate on our financial arrangements with the European Community? If he is unable to arrange for a debate purely on the problem of textiles, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), will he arrange for a debate on the wider issue of textiles and footwear, which are suffering from unfair competition from overseas? Can he say whether there will be a debate in Government time to ensure that decisions of the House that have already been taken on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill can proceed in order that the Bill can be passed?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That was a wide range of questions. I can confirm what I said in my reply to the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), that we should have a debate on the financial aspects of the Community. The question of footwear is important as part of the general textile debate. I shall also draw that matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. As to the Abortion


(Amendment) Bill, I understand that it has again been put down for 14 March and I think that we must wait and see what progress it makes.

Mr. Straw: While the Leader of the House may be reluctant to pre-empt decisions of the Secretary of State for the Environment with regard to part VI of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill—and one can perhaps understand why—does he agree that if there are to be changes in Government policy they should be announced in this House and not at Conservative conferences at the weekend?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have made it quite clear that provided the House is sitting, major statements on Government policy should be made to this House.

Mr. Latham: Does my hon. Friend recall that in the last few months he has twice said from the Dispatch Box that there is no change in Government policy towards the Palestine Liberation Organisation? Will he confirm that that is still so, because if there is to be any change some of us will give it implacable opposition?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am happy to say that the basis of the Government's policy on the Middle East is unchanged. It is to effect as speedily as possible peace and reconciliation, based on justice.

Mr. English: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm his answer to the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)? Is it clear that the Government have no intention of giving any time whatever to debate the breaking of cash limits by one of the four biggest spending Departments of State?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that that was what I said. I said that there would be an opportunity, either on the Supply day on Monday or during the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on Wednesday, to raise a variety of matters about which my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) is rightly concerned.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at early-day motion 454, which has been signed by myself and a growing number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, re-

garding the prohibition of right-hand mounted side-cars?

[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) Regulations 1980 (S.I., 1980, No. 140), dated 4th February 1980, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th February, be annulled.]

Can he say whether the House or the Committee on Statutory Instruments will be able to discuss that regulation before it becomes effective?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have seen both the regulation and my hon. Friend's early-day motion. I shall see whether it is possible to find time for a debate.

Mr. John Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that concern about the plight of the textile industry enjoys widespread support among all parties in the House? Does he accept that one of the reasons for an early debate is that hon. Members who represent textile constituencies can call for the sacking of the Chairman of the Services Committee, who we understand has authorised the issue of white shirts made in Hong Kong to House of Commons staff?

Mr. St. John-Stevas I have already said that I would like to have a debate on the textile industry, but I am afraid that I cannot offer an early prospect of it. As to the issue of white shirts to members of the staff by the Chairman of the Services Commit: "The right hon. Gentleman is the Chairman."]—I am the Chairman, I quite agree, but I was not aware of that proposal. I shall certainly look into the matter to see what has happened.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising.

Mr. Crouch: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is possible to debate reports that have not emanated from the House or from any Government Department, namely, the Flowers report and the report of the London Health Planning Consortium, both of which raise matters of fundamental concern to the administration of the Health Service in London,


with an effect across the whole country? It has not been possible to debate those reports in the Committee on the Health Services Bill—to which I must not refer—but they are important. Shall we have a chance of debating this matter in the Chamber?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I agree with my hon. Friend that both those reports are of extreme importance, but in the first place they are primarily the concern of the London area health authority and the University of London. When they have concluded their discussions, that will be the appropriate time for a discussion in this House.

Mr. Cohen: I should like to refer back to a reply that the right hon. Gentleman gave with regard to the Education (No. 2) Bill, which is at present being considered in another place. Is he aware that both sides of the House will be delighted that amendments relating to transport charges are being considered? However, will the right hon. Gentleman approach his colleagues to see whether they can revise their attitude, because it will be the parents of larger families rather than the parents of two-children families who will face a problem if those charges are imposed? I should like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he will discuss this matter again with those who are responsible for that policy.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that I am extremely concerned about that aspect of policy and that I am not unsympathetic to the various representations that have been made. Hence, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has already tabled one amendment about flat fares, and I have just announced a second alteration in the policy to limit possible charges—because they are only possible charges—to two children. Let us see what happens to that amendment before raising further matters. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that in response to representations the Government have made two very substantial modifications in the policy.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply in relation to the steel industry dispute, in the light of the fact that there is a hardening

of attitude outside the House, in that the wives of steel workers are now backing their menfolk to the hilt in order to achieve a just settlement? May I remind him that small businesses may go out of business? He has graciously allowed for a discussion on the Olympic Games. Should not we be discussing the games of the Government as a result of their non-intervention policy instead of the effective role that they should be playing in order to settle this dispute?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Along with the hon. Gentleman, I and all members of the Government are most concerned about that strike, and that it should be settled on a reasonable basis at the earliest possible opportunity. It is harming the country as a whole, as well as those who work in the industry and their families.

Mr. Dubs: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is an urgent need for a statement on, and a chance to debate, the practice of jury vetting, given that one judge has recently declared the practice unconstitutional, that at least one police force in the country has been disobeying instructions from the Home Office, and that the Attorney-General and the Secretary of State for the Home Department are obviously embarrassed by the subject, as shown by recent answers to parliamentary questions?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that anyone is embarrassed by questions on that subject. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the future of the jury and the working of the jury system are of paramount importance to everyone who is concerned about our liberties and constitution. The attitude of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, with whom I have been in constant communication about the matter, is that as soon as the courts have disposed of the subject he will be in a position to make a statement about it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: As the House has already been promised a statement on telephone tapping, does the Leader of the House agree that there ought to be a debate on that subject as soon as that statement has been made? If he cannot facilitate that request, does not he agree that there is a whole series of areas in which civil liberties seem to be encroached upon, and that there ought to


be a full debate on that matter before Easter?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sorry, but I do not think that there is time for a debate on that subject before Easter. However, I can meet the hon. Gentleman's request to some extent, in that I can guarantee that there will be a full statement by the Home Secretary before Easter on the important subject of telephone tapping.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL (DEBATE)

Mr. Speaker: I wish to make a brief statement. For the debate on Wednesday 12 March on the Second Reading of the Consolidated (No. 2) Bill, hon. Members may hand into my office by 9 am on Tuesday 11 March their names and the topics that they wish to raise. The ballot will be carried out as on the last occasion. An hon. Member may hand in only his or her own name and one topic.
The Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill includes certain Defence Supplementary Estimates for the current year, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 436, certain Civil Supplementary Estimates for the current year, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 437 and 438, and excesses in Defence and Civil Estimates for 1978–79, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 435. It will be in order on Second Reading of the Bill to raise topics falling within the ambit of the expenditure proposed in these papers.
I shall put out the result of the ballot later on 11 March.

SECOND ADJOURNMENT DEBATES

Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The business for the rest of the day is not exactly massive. At 12.10 pm today I gave notice to the Department of Trade on behalf of a colleague—the hon. Member for Chesterle-Street (Mr. Radice), who is detained on other business—that should the business collapse I should want to raise a subject relating to small businesses and hotels. Four hours have now elapsed. I have had two contradictory messages—

one from the Department of Trade saying that the matter related to the Department of Industry and one from the Department of Industry saying that it related to the Department of Trade. Up to now, after four hours' notice both Departments failed to confirm that they would be willing to supply a Minister should the occasion occur.
I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. In the past you ruled that adequate notice should be given to Ministers in cases of this kind. The business may last until 10 o'clock but I should like you to rule that four hours is adequate notice and that buck-passing by the Government is no excuse.

Mr. Speaker: From time to time I have indicated that after 8 pm it is unreasonable to accept notice of a second Adjournment debate. It is unfair to the Ministers and Departments, and everyone else concerned. I have always thought it reasonable to accept an application for a second Adjournment debate up until 8 o'clock. Although I have no wish to make an enemy of the Leader of the House, I advise the hon. Gentleman to pursue the matter with him. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to know which Minister answers to the House on the subject.

BUSINESS QUESTIONS (MEMBERS' INTERESTS)

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that a little earlier, in business questions, there arose an issue of an hon. Member not declaring an interest in travel when he asked a business question about travel. You said, quite rightly, that no resolution of the House required a declaration of interest during Question Time. However, I do not think that that matter has been specifically considered in relation to business questions.
I know that the matter will depend on a specific resolution. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to encourage hon. Members to declare an interest whenever possible, rather than allow an erosion of the existing requirements. It would be preferable, for the good of the House, the understanding of the people outside, and to avoid confusion or ambiguity, that interests were declared whenever possible.
It is not up to Back Benchers to table motions that will find time on the Floor of the House. It is up to the Leader of the House. By his indication today, that prospect is somewhat remote, to say the least. Therefore, I ask you, Mr. Speaker to use your office, whch is enormously influential, to improve the situation, with more declarations rather than fewer.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. The House resolved that during debates hon. Members should declare any interests that they had. Business questions fall under a different heading, as they are supplementary questions to the main issue. "Erskine May" is definite that it is not necessary to declare them. I am sure that the House will have taken note of what the hon. Member said.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, if the Police Negotiating Board Bill [Lords] be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that as soon as the proceedings on any Resolution come to by the House on Police Negotiating Board [Money] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Waddington.]

Orders of the Day — NEW HEBRIDES BILL

[Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The essential purpose of the Bill, in the words of the long title, is
to make provision in connection with the attainment by the New Hebrides of independence within the Commonwealth.
Before I describe the content of the Bill, I should like to trace briefly the history of the New Hebrides and the constitutional developments within the territory leading up to the introduction of the Bill.
The condominium of the New Hebrides is unique. It is administered jointly by Britain and France under a series of international agreements beginning with the protocol of 1914 which established the condominium. An archipelago of some 70 islands, the New Hebrides is situated in the South Pacific roughly halfway between Australia and Fiji. The total population is in the order of 120,000, of whom 112,000 are of Melanesian origin.
The process of decolonisation began in July 1977 when British and French Ministers announced a joint programme leading to independence for the New Hebrides in 1980. The first major step in the direction of independence was made in December 1978 when a Government of national unity was formed. Both sides of the long-standing political divide were equally represented in that Government, whose primary role was to draw up an independence constitution. Assisted by a broadly based constitutional committee, the new Government had, by mid-1979, made considerable progress with this task.
In September 1979 a constitutional conference was held in Vila, the capital, under the joint chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), and M. Dijoud, the French Secretary of State for Overseas Departments


and Territories. My hon. Friend, who has been handling this matter for Her Majesty's Government, much regrets that he is unable to be here today.
The conference unanimously agreed an independence constitution and it was decided that the New Hebrides should achieve independence in 1980. The conference also fixed a date for fresh elections to both the Representative Assembly and to regional councils on the islands of Santo and Tanna.
The constitution was formally adopted, and the decision to grant independence in 1980 confirmed, by an exchange of Notes between the British and French Governments signed in Paris on 23 October 1979. This exchange of Notes, to which the independence constitution is annexed, was laid before the House on 29 January as Cmnd 7808.
Elections to the Representative Assembly and the two regional councils on Santo and Tanna were held on 14 November 1979. The victors in both the central and the regional elections proved to be the predominantly anglophone Vanuaaku Pati, and they formed a Government led by Fr. Walter Lini. At the first meeting of the newly elected Assembly, Fr. Lini and his Cabinet were empowered to propose a date for independence during the period May to July 1980. We are planning for a date in May. The Representative Assembly has decided that the new republic should apply for membership of both the Commonwealth and the francophone Association for Cultural and Technical Co-operation.
Despite the fact that the rules for the elections of 14 November had been agreed by all parties, it rapidly became clear that certain minority groups on the islands of Santo and Tanna were not prepared to accept the outcome. The root of the problem is that the traditional so-called "custom movements" on these islands do not accept that power should be concentrated in the hands of a central Government. Their discontent has manifested itself in the form of a refusal to accept the legitimate authority of the lawfully elected Government.
Clearly this state of affairs is unacceptable, but we and our French partners have all along recognised that it would

be counter-productive for us to attempt to impose a solution which did not recognise the strongly held views of those concerned. Consequently, we have resolved to encourage the protagonists to work out their problems among themselves in the Melanesian way.
In January this year Fr. Lini led delegation from his Government to Europe for preliminary aid talks. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and his French counterpart took the opportunity of that visit to reaffirm their wholehearted support for Fr. Lini's Government. In a communiqué issued after a joint meeting in Paris on 8 January, the two Ministers undertook to do everything they could to smooth the path to independence and to counter all threats to the unity of the country. For his part, Fr. Lini undertook to enter into a dialogue with the leaders of the custom movements to ensure that ways might be found to safeguard and develop local traditions while preserving the essential unity of the country.
Despite his sincere efforts, Fr. Lini has so far been unsuccessful in his attempts to start negotiations, and custom movements in Santo and Tanna have continued to flout the authority of his Government, although so far no blood has been shed. In an effort to stimulate negotiations, British and French Ministers agreed to receive in Europe a delegation of opposition politicians and leaders of the various custom movements, but it is clear that progress in negotiations within the territory could be promoted by some outside stimulus, and to this end New Hebrides leaders are being invited to hold their talks in London later this month under auspices of the British and French Governments. Experience has shown that such problems are best solved on what might be described as neutral territory away from the daily round of political pressures.

Mr. Christopher Price: When the hon. Gentleman says that New Hebrides leaders are being encouraged to hold these talks, which leaders is he referring to?

Mr. Luce: Invitations have gone out, naturally, to the two main parties, and that incorporates those who are involved on the island of Santo. So all those who are concerned with these outstanding


difficulties will have the opportunity, if they wish to take it, to join in the discussions.
I should like to make it clear to the House that we and our French colleagues have no intention of imposing a solution. As I have already said, we would regard this as wrong and impractical. It is imperative that the people of the New Hebrides negotiate among themselves a solution acceptable to all parties which is compatible with both the provisions of the constitution and local tradition.

Mr. Russell Johnston: May I get this quite clear? The Minister has indicated that there will be this meeting in London within the next two months. We are now passing the Bill. Is the passing of the Bill to precede the discussions, and, if so, how will that work?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to explain that we have every intention, as have the French Government, of going ahead with the agreement that has been reached. What I was trying to explain to the House—and I thought it right to give a full explanation since there have been reports of difficulties on the island of Santo in particular—was the background to this. Since there are certain misunderstandings, we thought that we could help to smooth the path to independence, which we plan should be in May, subject to the agreement of the Chief Minister, by offering the opportunity to all the leaders to take part in talks in London if they so wish. We have yet to hear whether they will take this opportunity.

Mr. Stanley Newens: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he say what safeguards exist to lessen the possibility of some of the difficulties which have occurred so far erupting at a later stage into events which lead to bloodshed and loss of life? What steps are we taking to avoid that state of affairs?

Mr. Luce: As I have said, so far there has been no bloodshed at all. The only problem has been that the local office of the central Government was closed for a short time. It has now been opened.
The hon. Gentleman asks what will happen if there is further difficulty. At the moment, there is a police contribution

on the island which is keeping order. I do not believe it will be necessary, but, should it prove necessary, the British and French Governments would be prepared to make a small contribution to help maintain the law and order. I do not believe that this will necessarily arise, and after independence, of course, the new Government will have their own police force, which, I am quite sure, will be able to maintain law and order. Our objective, however, is to get a peaceful solution and since there has been no bloodshed so far I am quite sure that there is every prospect of attaining that.
I now come briefly to the provisions of the Bill. It is not what might be termed the usual independence Bill since it does not provide for the actual grant of independence. This is because the New Hebrides is not a British colony; its legal status as an Anglo-French condominium was established by international agreement and must therefore be terminated in the same way. This will be achieved by the exchange of Notes between the British and French Governments signed in Paris on 23 October 1979, which constitutes a legally binding international agreement and provides for the independence of the New Hebrides during 1980. The exact date of independence will be appointed by Order in Council to be made under this Bill.
As the long title suggests, the Bill contains, in the main, provisions consequent upon the decision of the New Hebrides Government to join the Commonwealth.
Clause 1 modifies the British Nationality Act 1948 so as to confer the status of British subject and Commonwealth citizen on citizens of the New Hebrides with effect from independence.
Clause 2(1) and schedule 1 provides for the modification of certain United Kingdom enactments consequential upon the attainment by the New Hebrides of independence within the Commonwealth.

Mr. John Wilkinson: To revert to the point my hon. Friend made about citizenship, can he say whether residents of the New Hebrides are at present British protected persons? What is their current status?

Mr. Luce: Their current status is that of British protected persons, but, because of the unique situation of the New


Hebrides in so far as it has not been a British colony, clearly we must provide for the fact that there are certain people who should be defined as citizens of the United Kingdom and its colonies. There are only about 460 of them. It is with that in mind and bearing in mind that they wish to join the Commonwealth that we have to undertake these necessary measures.
Clause 2(2) and schedule 2 provide for the repeal of a number of measures relating to the New Hebrides as a consequence of the change in its status.
Clause 3 enables Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to make provisions regarding any appeals from New Hebrides courts which may be pending before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council at independence.
Clause 4 gives the short title and provides that the modifications and repeals effected by the Bill will come into force at independence.
Turning to more general matters not covered by the Bill, the House will wish to know that the New Hebrides will, on independence, become a republic with an elected President as Head of State. The new Republic will have a unicameral legislature to be known as Parliament and a Council of Ministers responsible to it, headed by a Prime Minister. The independence constitution provides among other things for the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, citizenship, the judicature and the public service.
The New Hebrides economy and development will depend for some time on external aid donors. The parallel British and French administrations which developed as a result of the condominium system are being merged. While this process is now well advanced, we and the French Government are well aware of the heavy administrative burden which will be imposed upon the independent New Hebrides as a result of the duplication inherent in the condominium system of government. We shall be sympathetic to their future needs.
A British aid mission has recently visited the New Hebrides to discuss aid after independence. We hope that aid negotiations can be finalised when Fr. Lini visits London later this month.
The road to independence in the New Hebrides has not been an easy one and, as I have explained, there remain some difficulties. Such difficulties, however, are not unusual at this stage of the independence process and I am sure they will be satisfactorily resolved. I am equally sure that the House will wish to join me in congratulating the people and the Government of the New Hebrides on the very considerable progress which has been made since the decision in July 1977 that the territory should become independent this year. I am sure that our long association with the country will continue for many years to come.
With the assent of Parliament to the Bill, the way will be clear for the New Hebrides to join the Commonwealth on independence; and I am pleased that it will be as fellow members of the Commonwealth that we shall have the prospect of continuing the close ties which already exist between ourselves and the people of the New Hebrides.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Minister has said that we very much welcome the accession of the New Hebrides to the Commonwealth, and in that we heartily concur. It is not only that it is a unique country, but it will be extremely welcome for the great range of talents that it will bring to the Commonwealth. There can be very few parts of our Commonwealth that have such a joint heritage, which, of course, carries with it considerable difficulties, but which are capable of contributing so much.
I am delighted to welcome the New Hebrides to its new status as a republic, but there are one or two questions on which I wish to press the Minister. Although he has set out the history in considerable detail, some of the political implications of the Bill have been lightly passed over. The New Hebrides has been the responsibility of both the United Kingdom and France. This joint tradition means that the merging of the judiciary, the various administrative systems and the whole question of the languages will cause considerable difficulty.
The Minister did not say specifically whether our new Commonwealth member intended to apply for membership of the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of nations which has an associate status


with the European Economic Community. I assume that will be so and that, because of its francophone and anglophone traditions, the New Hebrides in the Community will be able to cross what sometimes seems to be a great divide. There is a practical difference between anglophone and francophone countries which is demonstated by the systems of law, administration and representation. The New Hebrides will have a monumental task in overcoming those differences, and for this it will need a great deal of economic assistance.
The Minister said that there would be discussions on the amount of aid that would be made available to the New Hebrides after it became a republic. I hope that we shall be more generous than we have been to new Commonwealth countries in the past. Because of all the difficulties that will be caused by the presence of two European languages and several others, even though there is a comparatively small population, it will be necessary to set up a completely new administration which will require monetary support and practical assistance.
What internal arrangements are envisaged in the new republic? Although the Minister seemed to be content that the Chief Minister would have responsibility through his police force for maintaining law and order and would be able to deal with any conceivable difficulties that might arise, there has been political trouble in the recent past, and we should not be fulfilling our role responsibly if we simply said that we intended to go ahead irrespective of the arrangements made for the maintenance of internal law and order. After independence, if we are asked by the New Hebrides Chief Minister for assistance, what will be the Government's attitude? Will they be prepared, if need be, to send assistance?
How will dual membership of francophone and Commonwealth organisations work for individual citizens of the New Hebrides? I assume that Commonwealth membership, which will carry with it considerable advantages and responsibilities, will not override membership of francophone organisations and that the two will work in concert and not necessarily against each other.
The Minister said that we should allow the New Hebrides to solve its problems

in a Melanesian way—a phrase which he did not elaborate. He is asserting a self-evident truth. In Melanesia, in what other way can the people solve their problems? The people of the South Pacific have a special quality. They have warm personalities and high standards. We should wholeheartedly support many of the moral values enshrined in their new constitution. Because of those qualities, the people are perhaps ill equipped to deal with more sophisticated societies which might for purely selfish reasons want to move in and put pressure on this extremely stable society, given the mixed strands that make it up.
We welcome the Bill because we wholeheartedly welcome the people of the New Hebrides to the Commonwealth. We shall give them our hand in friendship, and we hope that the Government are not assuming that with their attainment of full Commonwealth status our responsibility to them will be at an end. Our responsibility to them must be the moral responsibility of good friends, and we must be prepared to honour that responsibility in terms of hard cash.
I am very dispirited at the Government's attitude to the supply of aid. It is a disgrace that the United Kingdom has not been able to attain the percentage of support for underdeveloped and partially developed countries that it should have attained. In deciding the level of support, I hope that the Government will take into account all the complex questions, the religious differences and the language problems and say that in this instance it is only right, in view of its history, to give the new nation more generous assistance than we should have done in other circumstances.
Many years ago the people of the New Hebrides earned my affection with their warmth, kindness and upright character. I welcome them warmly to the Commonwealth, and I hope that independence will be the beginning of a new phase in an old and valued friendship.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I join the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) in welcoming the independence of the New Hebrides. Like her, I was charmed by the welcome I received when I visited the New Hebrides some years ago. I extend my congratulations


to Fr. Lini and his Government for the way in which they have started their task.
Because of the history and the present events in the New Hebrides, it is right that more than mere formal congratulations should be voiced in the House of Commons today. I am bothered that we are leaving behind us a system of law that is rather less than clear. Up to now there have been three systems of law—indigenous, French and British. In theory, since 1914 the Chief Justice has been appointed over the two European sections of the law according to the constitution by the King of Spain. For a long time there was not a King of Spain, and since there has been a King of Spain no steps have been taken to implement that constitutional law.
That is sufficiently puzzling, but to unravel the puzzle it was decided that a posse of British lawyers should elaborate a criminal code of justice and a posse of French lawyers should do the civil code. The British lawyers got down to their job, but what they produced was unacceptable to the new Government and they have been told to go back to the drawing board. The French lawyers just chucked their hands in the air and gave up, and no work has been done. Neither the criminal nor the civil code of law is ready for the new State.
Therefore, my first question to my hon. Friend is, what system of law are we leaving behind? Is it the old system? Will a British judge act according to British law and will a French judge act according to French law? Will there be French, English and indigenous law? How soon can that issue be clarified?
My second question concerns the police. Up to now the police have operated in different compartments. There is a French office of police and a British office of police. The two forces do not speak each other's language and they operate in different areas. To whom will the police force be loyal in future? Obviously, it is intended that it should be loyal to the elected Government, but what steps are being taken to ensure the amalgamation of the two forces?
I come now to the dreadful Mr. Stevens. He is, as I understand it, British—perhaps not—and is the front man for

a bunch of desperadoes who wish to take over the island of Santo for their own economic purposes.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Maybe he is a Conservative.

Mr. Kershaw: He may be a Conservative and he may be Australian Labour. I do not know what he is, but I do not think that he deals in politics. Mr. Stevens deals in money.
He has an illegal radio transmitter and he broadcasts his rubbish from Santo. I am not sure what my hon. Friend said about this, but so far no police have been willing to go to Santo to chuck out this chap and the people for whom he is the front man. If the police went there, there might be bloodshed, and that may be a good reason for not undertaking an expedition. Nevertheless, I should like to know what the position is. Are we trying to bring this man to heel, and after we have left the New Hebrides who will bring him to heel? My hon. Friend said that we were willing to make a small contribution to the maintenance of law and order. Is that contribution to be money, or troops, or a Commonwealth force? What are we talking about? Are the "bobbies" to go on from Rhodesia in order to fix Mr. Stevens? We would like to know.

Mr. Christopher Price: Before the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) leaves the matter of Mr. Stevens, I think another question should be added to the list he has posed, especially as Mr. Stevens is coming to London. Lord Trefgarne said in the House of Lords:
With regard to the position of Mr. Stevens' nationality, I am advised that he has on at least one occasion endeavoured to travel upon a passport that he issued himself."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 February 1980; Vol. 404, c. 1109.]
Can the Minister say whether Mr. Stevens is coming to London on a passport that he has issued to himself?

Mr. Kershaw: That is an interesting point. It means that at least one would be sure that one's passport arrived in time for one's journey.
There is the question of citizenship in the New Hebrides. My hon. Friend dealt adequately with this matter. We understand that the new State will become a member of the Commonwealth. In that


case, I take it that those who wish will be British subjects without the right of entry to the United Kindgom. What will happen in the case of the French union? Will those citizens also be members of the French union? I suppose they will. If so, what right of citizenship is involved? Have those people the right of entry into France and its dependent territories such as New Caledonia? That might be important to them.
We know from the history of the Pacific that one of the great dangers in that part of the world is that States split apart. That was the bugbear of their history before the colonial Powers moved in. We are quitting the new State and leaving behind two systems of education, three systems of law, two police forces and the island of Santo, which appears to be trying to separate itself, in dubious circumstances, from the new State. There are two European languages and goodness knows how many indigenous languages there.
That is not the sort of scenario that we have left behind previously. No doubt, as the hon. Member for Crewe so rightly said, we will be generous with our aid, which I believe is running at £6 million a year. I believe that we should be generous because the people of the New Hebrides will have special problems given that the picture I have painted is not incorrect.
I wonder whether the Government have considered asking Australia whether she would join in this matter. After all, Australia has a great deal to do with the New Hebrides. The Australian dollar is the currency of the island and most of the visitors come from Australia, as do most of the young executives. I have no doubt that Australia would be willing to entertain the idea and I hope that she will be asked.
The people of the New Hebrides are embarking on a difficult voyage and I believe that they are entitled to a bettter launch than they are getting. However, I was much relieved to hear that the Government have asked the leaders of the New Hebrides to come here to try to iron out some of the difficulties which I felt it my duty to set before the House today.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to you for recognising me twice in succession. Perhaps that is because I am, indeed, larger than the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody).

Mrs. Dunwoody: Only just.

Mr. Johnston: I can also claim a unique attribute in that I suspect that I shall be the the only Member of the House to speak in the debate on the independence of the New Hebrides who comes from the old Hebrides.
How the New Hebrides got its name is not clear from history. The journal of Captain Cook from 31 August 1774 recognises the activities of other European explorers in those regions. The journal also notes that Captain Cook's journeys had been more complete than those of the other explorers. It goes on to say about the islands whose future we are now discussing:
I think we have obtained the right to name them and shall in future describe them by the name of the New Hebrides.
There does not seem to be any real connection between Scotland and those islands, much though I would like to establish one.
It is far enough now to travel from the island of Skye in the Inner Hebrides, where I was brought up, to Santo or Tanna or Porto Vila. In the days of Captain Cook it must have seemed like a journey beyond Mars. I think that it is a comment on the extent of public interest in the fragmented tail of empire and an observation on our lack of any serious responsible commitment to these inheritances of our Imperial past that the only press interest in the independence of the New Hebrides that I could dig up was an article in The Guardian on 21 November 1979 and an article in this week's issue of the magazine Now covering the period 24 February to 4 March. That is all that I have seen in the British press. I may have missed something, but that is not very much. Neither article gave me particular cause for comfort—rather the opposite. I shall return to that in a moment.
My point is that we are proceeding with this important legislation—important despite an earlier objection by an hon. Member who said that there was not


much business in the House today, merely the small matter of the New Hebrides—in that this day we are giving up responsibility for the weal of 120,000 people. That is important.

Mr. Christopher Price: I should like to dispel any misconceptions. I think that I am the only Member of the House who has raised an Adjournment debate on the New Hebrides. If our discussions on one will be happier than I. I certainly this Second Reading last until 10 pm, no do not intend to curtail my remarks. I simply felt that the House was not as packed as it usually is for an occasion of this kind.

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) is correct. Only 12 hon. Members are in the Chamber. I do not seek to criticise the hon. Member for Lewisham, West, but we should be worried that the House is making a decision on behalf of the New Hebrides when only 12 of us are present. We must be sure that we are making the decision in response to a clear demand, or we must be sure that we are doing right by the people whose traditional mode of life was disrupted by our ancestors. They bequeathed upon them languages, religion, laws and cultural mores which had no previous place in the islands' development. We have a great responsibility for the way in which the islands are now run.
In pluralist Europe we make great issues of individualism and human rights but we still play the numbers game. I have just returned from Rhodesia—or Zimbabwe. I praise the Government for going to such enormous lengths to ensure that the transition there was as fair as possible. They ensured that if they misjudged or missed anything there were enough people to hone in on, highlight and facilitate their correction.
But Rhodesia's population is about 6½ million and the country holds a crucial position in Africa. The New Hebrides has a population of only 120,000. Most people do not even know where it is and—this is very important—no one believes that it has special commercial or political significance. What worries me is that we are deciding on an issue about which we know so little. We are acting on advice from the Foreign Office. Usually that

advice is not bad, but it can be seriously wrong occasionally.
When I was in Rhodesia I heard Joshua Nkomo speaking at a great rally in Gwelo. He said that people are people, whatever their colour or number, and that they are of like importance. That is worth remembering. I am not sure whether we are doing the right thing. The Bill might be right. I shall not oppose it, but I am not sure.
I should like to ask the Minister some questions. Is there genuine pressure for independence, or is it a question of Britain and France getting shot of an inconvenience? Normally, when there is genuine pressure for independence protesters go to see Members of Parliament. Nobody has come to see me about the issue. I know that the islands are far away and that the people are not rich. That might be the reason. I should like to know whether there has been genuine pressure for independence.
Were discussions held about the French system of dealing with its enclaves, because that has been pretty successful and should not be dismissed lightly? Integration with metropolitan France has been achieved in a number of cases. That is not an easy solution when there is simultaneous responsibility, but it should not be impossible. Was there any discussion about the possibility of giving the New Hebrides a dominion-type status with full self-government and with the condominium remaining responsible for defence? That would be a relevant solution.
Will the Minister assure us that the Foreign Office does not exclude the possibility of Britain's accepting an ongoing responsibility for its enclaves? Britain has only a few bits and pieces scattered round the globe. Have the Government considered that possibility, if the islanders so wish, as do the people of Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands and Hong Kong? Have we had a dialogue with our existing dependencies about that possibility? Have the Government considered the possibility of retaining such a relationship with the New Hebrides?
Our remaining dependencies tend to be small and fragile. However, they have an integrated concept of themselves. Gibraltar, for example, has such a concept of itself. We should recognise that in terms of human rights. Will the


Minister make available in the Library a document expressing the Government's schematic thinking and, colony by colony, what they believe should be done with the pieces of land and people over which we retain sovereignty? Is there a general view as opposed to a pragmatic reaction? I do not seek to resist genuine claims for independence. However, as a responsible parent Power with responsibility for small fragile colonies, we should consider whether another option is appropriate.

Mr. Kershaw: Will the hon. Member explain the similarities between Pitcairn Island and Hong Kong?

Mr. Johnston: The similarity is that they are British dependencies. However, Pitcairn Island has a population of only about 60, while Hong Kong has a population of about 5 million. They are both British responsibilities. At some stage we must decide what to do about them. It may be easy to give independence to Hong Kong or to give Hong Kong to China. It is more difficult to give independence to the 60 people of Pitcairn Island. However, the responsibility is ours.
The word "fragile" is relevant. I am an islander from Skye. That island has a larger population than that of Anguilla. We experienced great problems in Anguilla. Islands are economically difficult, but touristically they can be enormously profitable. They can also be strategically crucial, as is Diego Garcia. If they are way out in the sea they can easily be seized. The hon. Member for Crewe mentioned Mr. Jimmy Stevens, and the possible American influence there was also referred to by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw). This has also been outlined in Now magazine and in The Guardian. The House would benefit from the Minister's indicating his knowledge of this matter. Is what we have read in the press well founded, or is it not? It is not just a question of Left or Right.
I am unhappy about what has happened in the Seychelles, where an elected Government were replaced following a coup d'etat. That is a group of islands where the people are educationally undeveloped and it looks as though they will be shaped and moulded by someone who

has seized power. That is something that we should not wish to see happen in the New Hebrides. Some people suggest that that might happen in Santo.
I conclude by saying that I am unhappy on an occasion which should be a happy one. My noble Friend Lord McNair has indicated in the other place that we are not by any means convinced that the future of these islands to which we are giving independence is an assured democratic one. We believe that we do not know enough to make a proper judgment. I must honestly say that Lord Trefgarne's speech in the other place was somewhat inadequate, and I do not believe that the Minister's speech was any more illuminating.
As a Liberal, I am frequently critical of the actions of the press, but I suspect that if the Daily Mirror, The Guardian and The Times had correspondents sitting in the New Hebrides our debate would be of an entirely different character and the Minister's speech would have taken account of that.
We have been told continuously by the Minister that central authority has been criticised. It seemed that he admitted that in his speech. At the same time, it is strange that we should pass a Bill before we have had discussions to resolve and recognise the difficulties. When I intervened in the Minister's speech, he admitted that that was so. The nature of these difficulties has already been specified, so I shall not repeat them. There are the problems of statute law, the police, and Mr. Stevens. No one has mentioned the Phoenix Foundation, which, according to Now magazine, is behind Mr. Stevens. It might be helpful if the Minister confirmed, denied or commented on whether this is a real criticism. I am not raising this matter because I know anything about it, but as a Member of Parliament I am merely saying that that is the only information that is available to me.
Now is certainly not a magazine affiliated to the Tribune group, as far as I am aware—no doubt the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) will confirm that in due course—yet it has expressed serious doubts about whether the end result of the passing of the Bill will be democratic.
I shall not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but I wish to register considerable concern, in the absence of information, and I place full responsibility for the Bill with the Government. In saying that, I do not in any way suggest that I do not offer Fr. Lini and the people of the islands my warm support in their future status.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Unlike previous contributors to the debate, I cannot claim to have enjoyed Melanesian hospitality and I have seen neither the New Hebrides nor the old.
We had a typically Liberal speech from the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). He said—I summarise—that he might be right or he might be wrong. He was not sure about the provisions of the Bill, but in a speech of great sincerity and charm, mostly in the interrogative, he came to the conclusion that he did not know enough to make a proper judgment.

Mr. Russell Johnston: As the hon. Member has never been to the New Hebrides, I am sure that as a Conservative he is fully capable of making a totally convinced judgment.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am. I shall make a judgment about subsections (1) and (2) of clause 1. Before I do so, I should like to add my congratulations to those already given to the people of the New Hebrides. I wish them well in their independence.
The provisions of this legislation to which I wish to draw attention are rather analogous to those to which I drew the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State during the Report stage of the Zimbabwe Bill. However, in one important respect the matter we are discussing this afternoon is unique. The condominium status of the New Hebrides is different from that of any other territory to which we have granted independence. Therefore, the citizenship provisions in the Bill are different. I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether, first, membership of the francophone association which the people of the New Hebrides will enjoy after independence confers any rights of subject-hood in the way that membership of the British Commonwealth does on Commonwealth nationals.
There is another matter in the Bill that is of significance. By the passage of the Bill we will confer upon those residents of the New Hebrides who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies—I gather that it is all of them with the exception of about 460—a status they did not previously enjoy. In the independence legislation that has been passed hitherto, we have continued the status that people have enjoyed up to that time.
I gather that residents of the New Hebrides are British protected persons. In essence, they are stateless, similar to the way in which residents of Kashmir were stateless. However, we have undertaken certain technical obligations in their regard. If residents of the pre-independence New Hebrides were, for example, to reside in Britain, I take it that they would not be able to join the police or the Armed Forces, serve on a jury or vote in the same way as British subjects and Commonwealth nationals are. After the Bill becomes law, because New Hebrideans will become Commonwealth nationals, and, ipso facto, British subjects, they will be able to enjoy those rights. That is something that is totally new in our citizenship law. It is also of great significance.
This may be almost the last opportunity that I shall have to draw attention to the concepts of British subjecthood as described in the British Nationality Act. British subjecthood, as described in the British Nationality Act 1948, is totally analogous to Commonwealth citizenship. The 1948 Act describes "British subject" and "Commonwealth citizen" as having the same meaning. That may be so in strictly legal parlance according to the 1948 Act, but surely they do not have exactly the same meaning in terms of the everyday perception in this country of what British subjecthood means. Section 1 of the 1948 Act provides:
Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a citizen of that country shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject.
In every piece of independence legislation that has passed through the House—for example, the Tuvalu Act and now, we hope, the New Hebrides Bill—we have given to people many miles away from these shores, who probably have no


family connection with this country and who probably have little understanding of our way of life as it is lived in Britain, the right to fulfil certain obligations and privileges in the United Kingdom. For reasons that are based largely on nostalgia, the concept of British subjecthood stems directly from our Imperial legacy. It stems from the day when a citizen of a colony or a dependency of the United Kingdom, wherever it may have been on the globe, could proudly say "Civis Brittanicus sum"—"I have the same rights as any United Kingdom passport holder in the United Kingdom itself." It was a fine and noble concept. However, the reality has been that the independent States that we have created have been proud above all of their independence. That has been their supreme pride. It is not right that for ever we should perpetuate a system that is in essence nostalgic, quasi-Imperial and in no way related to contemporary reality.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am trying hard to follow the hon. Gentleman's speech. Is he saying that it is all right to be nostalgic if we are British and talking about someone who stands as a colonial subject but that it is wrong to use the fact that we have had responsibility for that State as the basis for giving it a proper status once it has become independent? Is that the basis of his argument? If it is, it seems extraordinarily paternalistic and mildy offensive.

Mr. Wilkinson: It may offend the hon. Lady, but it is anything but paternalistic. I see no reason in logic why the citizen of an overseas country that is independent and happens to be in the Commonwealth—

Mrs. Dunwoody: Happens to be in the Commonwealth?

Mr. Wilkinson: Yes. It freely decides to join the Commonwealth. I see no reason why a citizen of that country should have rights and obligations in the United Kingdom that are greater than the rights and obligations of an EEC national. That is a fair basis of comparison. For example, EEC nationals resident in Britain are not able to vote in elections to the Assembly of the European Communities. However, Commonwealth nationals, who probably have no concept of the EEC and who probably may not

even understand English, can vote by virtue of their Commonwealth citizenship. I do not think that that is appropriate. I do not think that it is right.
I am seeking to put out a marker for the reform of citizenship which is necessary. British subjecthood should be a function of residence in this country, or close family connection with the United Kingdom, namely, patriality, which is a principle that we have already established in the Immigration Act 1971. As the Under-Secretary of State has said, the Bill has no immigration overtones. Similarly, my speech has no immigration overtones. I am merely seeking to draw to the attention of the House some of the anomalies that exist in British citizenship law, and the Bill has done that very well.

Mr. Russell Kerr: I shall make only a brief intervention, for two reasons. First, two of my relatives spent varying times in the area of the New Hebrides, one as a medical administrator and the other as a business man. My two relatives spent about half a dozen years in the area separately. Secondly, although it is true that I have never been to the New Hebrides—I have been to Papua and New Guinea—I believe that I am the only Australian-born Member of the House of Commons. In part, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I share that distinction with you as a Commonwealth-born Member.
It is appropriate that as the New Hebrides is delivered into nationhood there should be a great mass of good will shown towards it explicitly, certainly by the United Kingdom and by the older and, dare I say it, rather richer members of the Commonwealth, such as my own native Australia, which for geographical reasons has a sizeable interest in the new nation.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) has reminded us that Australian business men and professionals have had quite a long association with the New Hebrides. It forms part of the Australian consciousness. It will be appropriate if relations between Australia and the new nation become even stronger in the years ahead. The new nation is being launched on to the sea of nationality all on its own. It will need friends and assistance in


rather more liberal measure than was forthcoming in the past. It is potentially a rich country. If it is properly managed and if the right sort of political and social system is forthcoming, it promises a full and happy life for its inhabitants.
Perhaps the main reason for my intervention is to emphasise that we are discussing an area of considerable sensitivity. The feature that makes it sensitive in terms of international politics is that over the past 20 years—certainly over the past 10 years—there has been a major Japanese economic incursion into the area. A great many of the bits and pieces of the economic infrastructure of the area have been taken over by the Japanese, who are now Australia's number one customer in both importing and exporting. That is a factor that cannot be dismissed. I am not sure whether I can offer any advice on what the answer is or what it should be. However, it is not something that we as a nation can ignore any more than Australia should be ignoring it.
I wish to place a warning beacon so that we know what we are doing in future. I hope that we shall walk around that part of the world with our eyes open and avoid stumbling into situations that we may come to regret for political reasons.
My lighthearted references to Mr. Jimmy Stevens and his political sensitivities were not meant over-seriously. I am not even aware that he is a member of the Australian Labour Party. Perhaps that is even less likely than my earlier references.
I welcome the new nation. I welcome the Bill because of the help that it is offering to the new nation. I am sure that the residents and natives of the New Hebrides can look forward to a long and fruitful period of co-operation with the essentially generous and liberal-minded people of this country. I wish the new nation every success in future.

Mr. Christopher Price: I should like to give my good wishes in advance to the newly independent New Hebrides. However, I wish to make one remark about the speech of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). It was an interesting and realistic speech, but it was reminiscent of his former speeches when he represented

the constituency of Bradford, West. Britain's law on citizenship contains many problems. We have not yet sorted out those problems. However, the fact that a few New Hebrideans might come to Britain and acquire in May the right to vote here is a cause for self-congratulation on the flexibility and liberality of our constitution. It is not a cause for little niggles.
The Minister referred to three sets of events that have taken place in Santo since the elections as "difficulties". Clearly they are difficulties. However, it has been the Government's custom to describe violence and intimidation as "violence and intimidation" when it occurs in Britain. I recognise how delicate the situation is. However, we should call a spade a spade. On the island of Santo, the Vanuaaku Pati might win a majority. Violence and intimidation might take place afterwards. As a result, many of the citizens of Santo will leave the island. They will be too frightened to return. The Government's representative's house may be occupied. The Government's writ may no longer run in the island for several days. The British representative may be unable to go there. Such events should be described for what they are. They should not be described by such euphemisms as "difficulties".
There is a problem of policing and of security in the New Hebrides. The conference may take place during the next few weeks. Whatever the result of that conference, there may be problems after independence. It behoves the British and French Governments to leave resources in the hands of the locally elected Government of the New Hebrides. They should ensure that it remains a united country.
There are difficulties. One difficulty is that of the French connection. It is well known that the forces of intimidation in Santo are connected with French business men on the island. The French have substantial economic interests on Santo. The same difficulties that existed before independence many reappear after independence. If the British feel that they wish to fulfil an obligation, and if they wish to ensure that this newly independent country can survive, they should bear in mind that the French have troops in Noumea, in New Caledonia. They may not be inhibited, as they were in the past,


from using those troops if French citizens are involved. If troops from Noumea are used to put down troubles in the New Hebrides, it may cause trouble in Paris.
Britain is not in a position to intervene. Our nearest troops are in Brunei. I do not want the Minister to spell out every contingency plan. I was encouraged by the statement of the two Ministers of State, the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) and his hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). I was also encouraged to some extent by the words of Lord Trefgarne. Fr. Walter Lini deserves a very forthright statement from the Government during the Second Reading debate. The Government should state that this country is committed to the integrity of the New Hebrides. The Government should be prepared to go further and to commit themselves, if that should prove necessary. We have had such assurances before for the period before independence. The Government have said that they will take every necessary measure. That is reassuring.
We do not know what will happen after independence. It has been pointed out that we shall be asked to give the Bill a Second Reading and to go through the remaining stages of the Bill before the conference takes place. The Minister hopes that the conference will smooth out any difficulties. The conference may not take place at all. It may succeed and it may fail. Should it fail, we must use our best endeavours both before and after independence to ensure that nothing disrupts that country. We must go ahead with our promise to give it independence in May or June of this year. Many preparations have been made and it would be counter-productive to postpone the independence celebrations or procedures. I differ from the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) on that point.
The New Hebrides is a difficult country to govern. It is not used to unitary government from Porto Vila. Very powerful economic interests are involved. Several people might be determined to break up that country. Strong connections in terms of air transport and economic links exist with the neighbouring French colony of New Caledonia. Nickel deposits are found there. There is a fifty-fifty balance between French colons and the indigenous

kanaka. As a result the French have made clear that they will never give New Caledonia its independence, in the same way as it was conceded to the New Hebrides.
There are powerful people in New Caledonia who have a lot of money to spend. They do not have the best interests of the New Hebrides at heart. That country is trying to do what no other country has ever tried to do, with the exception of Mauritius and the Seychelles, namely, to build a bilingual State. In addition, religious divisions exist. The Minister must speak convincingly if we are to be reassured that events following independence will be given a reasonable guarantee. The Government of the country have few resources.
My second set of questions concerns the status of the conference that the Minister announced. I am sure that he will agree that it is unthinkable for that conference to reopen the constitutional conference. That should be made absolutely clear. The constitutional conference has taken place, the parties have signed their agreement and free and fair elections have taken place. They did not get as much publicity as the other free and fair elections, but they were free and fair, and the British and French authorities agreed to respect them. One group and one group only are still disputing them.
If only one group disputes a set of elections, it is not normal to haul everyone over to London for a second constitutional conference. I accept the Minister's statement that Fr. Walter Lini hopes to settle these matters in the Melanesian way, and I discussed that with him when he was last in London. If they are to be settled in the Melanesian way, I would expect it to be done on the spot.
If the conference takes place, I hope that it will in no way be seen as undermining Fr. Walter Lini's authority, which has been bestowed on him by free and fair elections in the New Hebrides. I should like that reassurance from the Minister.
Is it expected that Jimmy Stevens will come to the conference? The Minister did not say that in as many words. If he is, it will provide a colourful sight at Heathrow. We may waive some of our passport restrictions. I doubt whether he will receive the treatment that some of


my constituents get when they arrive at Heathrow. If he comes, I hope that the Government will get their protocol right. They should not equate an individual who has gone through a series of democratic elections and lost with a Prime Minister who has gone through them and won. It is important to get that straight.
I have qualms over whether bringing the parties to London is the right approach that will lead to the best result. The Government have decided to issue invitations, although I understand that there has not yet been a response.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, will he say something about the integrity of the New Hebrides? The subject occurs again and again in these circumstances. It occurred over Bermuda and Banaba, and we have had secession arguments over many other places. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the condominium concept of the New Hebrides is valid?

Mr. Price: I believe that it is as valid as any other. The most appalling bequest from the West to the Third world is that its peoples should live within accidental geographical areas which originally had no meaning. Nowhere is that more true than in the Pacific Ocean.
We agreed to let the Gilbert and Ellice Islands split up into Kiribati and Tuvalu. It would have been unreasonable to force one island full of Micronesian people and the other full of Polynesian people to form the same community, especially when they were thousands of miles apart.
In the New Hebrides the people are broadly Melanesian. They have probably been less susceptible to Western democracy, law and general customs than many other communities. That may be one of the problems. Looking at the map of the New Hebrides, at first sight they do not appear to be an easy group of islands to run from Porto Vila.
The only hope for the world with regard to international affairs and law is to stick to the territorial integrity of former colonial countries, whatever absurdities and idiocies are produced. One day it may be possible to have greater rationalisation. The only way for decolonisation to proceed has been on that prin-

ciple. I suspect that that must happen in the New Hebrides, but the people need help and reassurance that they are not being undermined. I agree with the hon. Member for Inverness that it will not be an easy task.
Finally, I realise that in the constitution the new Government will have the right to take control, with compensation, if necessary, of land in the New Hebrides.
In replying to my Adjournment debate on 7 December, the Minister said:
The constitution provides that all land in the Republic will belong to the indigenous custom owners and their dependants. It requires that Parliament shall enact a national land law. It goes on to say that Parliament shall prescribe such criteria as it deems appropriate for the assessment of compensation and the manner of its payment to those persons whose interests are adversely affected."—[Official Report, 7 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 883.]
That is splendid as far as it goes. I am sure that the new Government, after independence, will take steps to make sure that they have control over the use to which land is put.
However, I was disturbed when the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office wrote to me on a matter that he had been unable to deal with in the debate, with regard to land in the New Hebrides owned by Americans connected with the Phoenix Foundation. He said:
I understand that a total of 5,008·5 hectares"—
I cannot work that out, but I understand that it is quite a lot—
of land on the islands of Gaua (Banks Group), Malekula and Pentecost is at present owned by Americans directly connected with the Foundation. Title to a further 3,498·5 hectares of land—most of it on Santo—is held by an American who is suspected of being involved"—
that is, with the Phoenix Foundation—
but whose precise relationship with the Foundation is not clear. This particular area of land has been sub-divided into 283 plots, title of which has been registered to other individuals, including some Americans.
After independence there will be a frail Government with tiny resources, who will be trying to take control, with compensation agreed in the constitution, of land allegedly owned by some dubious Americans. Anyone who knows about the history of the New Hebrides understands that the role of the British and French


in dividing up land over the past 100 years has been dubious.
I fear that although the constitution is splendid and gives the new Government the right to take control of land and use it in the interests of the people, which I am sure they know best about, it is doubtful whether they will have the powed to do that, considering some of the interests that they may be up against.
I ask the Minister to make it clear that if there are any attempts—whether direct or through economic pressure, or in any other way—to put pressure on the new Government of the New Hebrides they will have the full support of the British Government in resisting those attempts and running the New Hebrides as they think it should be run. I am pleased that the Bill provides for the New Hebrides to become a member of the Commonwealth. That is some sort of earnest of the help that we may be able to give. I am also pleased that the New Hebrides will become a member of the Lomé convention. That is also an earnest of the support that we shall give.
The decision of the United Kingdom over the past 15 years—a decision that has been accelerated over the last five or six years—to grant independence to a number of tiny island States in the Pacific is right, but we should not deceive ourselves into thinking that it puts them into strategic positions. It could place them in great difficulties.
In a sense, the French have recognised that by saying that they will stay in Polynesia and Caledonia for the foreseeable future. We are giving independence, but we are really relying on our friends in Australia, New Zealand and even Japan to make sure that those States are able to develop as genuinely independent mini-States rather than as neo-colonialist dependants of other Powers. The more the Minister can say that we are committed to their genuine interests and to letting the New Hebrideans run their country as they think fit, the greater the reassurance will be to Fr. Walter Lini and his colleagues. I am sure that the whole House wishes them well when the New Hebrides becomes independent.

Mr. Luce: With the leave of the House, should like to answer at least some, if

not most, of the many points that have been raised.
I was somewhat taken aback by the response to my speech. I had thought that the House would find it rather long, but many hon. Members thought that I had not been full enough in my explanation not only of the history but of the present situation in the New Hebrides.
It is remarkable that we are debating a country that is a long way from here, in the Pacific. It is a country that many people—this is no offence to the people of the New Hebrides—do not know very much about, and yet there are Members from all parties who have spoken with expert knowledge of that part of the world. That is one of the extraordinary things about this House. In a debate on almost anything under the sun, there is always someone who knows something about the problem. It should be a source of comfort to the people of the New Hebrides that some hon. Members know a lot about their country.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) has left the Chamber. It is rare to hear him speak, and it is very rare that I agree with what he says. I welcome the spirit in which he spoke about the progress towards independence for the New Hebrides and I should like to reaffirm, on behalf of the Government, that Great Britain and our other friends in the Commonwealth, notably Australia, will demonstrate a real and continuing interest in the future of the New Hebrides. We, along with the French, shall continue to do that after independence.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) knows a great deal about the New Hebrides, and I listened to his speech with care. I stress to him that the British and French Governments are totally committed to the agreements that were reached last autumn in Vila about the constitution and the agreement to proceed towards independence between May and June of 1980. We are totally committed to that, as are the French Government, and we owe it to our friends and to the Government in the New Hebrides to ensure that we proceed along those lines.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West suggested that I was not calling a spade a spade when I spoke about the island of Santo. I was not seeking to exaggerate


the problem. I do not think that it should be exaggerated. Of course, there has been some intimidation, and there is—I say this in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw)—a small police force there, but they have not had to use force. Order has been maintained, and there has been no bloodshed. I was deliberately seeking not to exaggerate the problem. I was simply seeking to inform the House that there are some outstanding differences of opinion between some members of the Custom movement and the central Government.
Although we are fully committed to proceed with the agreement, we felt that it was our duty with the French as the join Powers responsible to act as a sort of lubricant machinery to try to smooth over any of the outstanding difficulties between now and the date that is shortly to be chosen for independence. I stress again that we are fully committed to everything that was agreed last autumn between all the parties and with the French. There is no question of reopening the issue.
The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) asked some important questions about matters that I did not touch on in my speech, and I am grateful to her for asking them. She touched on the question of economic assistance, which is an important issue. We already give a considerable sum of aid to the New Hebrides. It is one of the highest in the world, per capita, and it has been at the rate of about £6 million a year—which is a large sum for a population of 120,000. An aid team has recently visited the New Hebrides and made an assessment. We shall be ready to discuss with the Chief Minister when he visits Britain at the end of the month the future aid programme after independence. We shall be as forthcoming as possible.
The hon. Member for Crewe also asked about the ACP. As a dependency up to now, the New Hebrides has received benefits from the European development fund. On independence, it will be entitled to full membership of the Lomé convention. I am sure that it will receive benefits from that.

Mrs. Dunwoody: One thing that occurs to me is that there is a marked

difference within the ACP between countries that are ex-francophone and those that are ex-anglophone in the way that they negotiate trade arrangements with the EEC. It is noticeable that where countries are still regarded as part of metropolitan France they have a special relationship with the Community, and in some instances they get much better terms than do ex-anglophone countries. Is the Minister satisfied that the New Hebrides will benefit to the fullest extent? It is just possible that it might be losing a positive advantage.

Mr. Luce: In these circumstances, we have the unique situation of condominium—that is, joint responsibility between France and Britain. If there is any truth in what the hon. Lady says, the New Hebrides will have the benefit of both the British and French Governments taking a keen negotiating interest on its behalf within the Community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has visited the New Hebrides and knows a great deal about that part of the world. He asked one or two questions. On the security side, the police forces will be amalgamated. They will pledge loyalty to the new Government in the same way as other services which will be amalgamated. After independence it will be up to the new Government in the same way if they wish, and we shall consider any requests from them. Some of the British expatriates serving in the police force and other services in the New Hebrides may wish to continue giving service. We shall continue to take a keen interest in all these aspects.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned the law. We are now in the process of seeking a unified criminal code, which is being prepared, and British experts are also preparing a unified civil and commercial code. There will be a single system of courts, and the British and French courts will cease to exist.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has a great interest in citizenship. I shall not get too involved in this question, as we could spend a long time discussing it. My hon. Friend is a considerable expert and he knows that the Government are pledged to reform the nationality law. That will provide him with the opportunity to put his points across.
I apologise to my hon. Friend because, when he intervened earlier, I misled him slightly on the question of citizenship in the New Hebrides. There is an indigenous New Hebridean population which consists of 112,000 of the total of 120,000 people living there. At present they are technically stateless, although they carry special travel documents when travelling abroad, enabling them to call on the British and French authorities for protection if that is necessary. Under the independence constitution they will acquire New Hebridean citizenship on independence.
There are about 5,000 French citizens living in the New Hebrides, 1,500 Australians, New Zealanders and citizens of other independent Commonwealth countries and 460 citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies. The Bill provides for them to continue as citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) raised a number of points, some of which have been partly answered. He asked whether there was genuine pressure or desire for independence. I confirm that there is and that there has been for some time. That desire led to the setting up in 1978 of a constitutional committee of all parties to examine the constitution on the basis that all parties wanted independence and were committed to it. This led to the two main parties working together for a common constitution. At that stage there was a Government of national unity, which demonstrated the common desire to proceed in this direction.
The hon. Member also asked whether other options had been considered. The answer is "Yes". It was open to the

parties concerned to consider union with France. The Government party, which is the anglophone party, represents 55 per cent. of the population. However, these arrangements for independence were the wish of the two main parties, so there is no problem there.
The hon. Member ended up on the broader issue of British Government policy on dependencies. I do not think that it would be right for me to make a long comment about the future of our remaining dependencies, save to note that whichever Government have been in office—Labour or Conservative—have adopted a pragmatic approach to each situation—Hong Kong, the Falkland Islands and Belize. In this unusual case we have done just that, in close co-operation with the French. In fact, throughout all the stages we have worked extremely closely with the French Government.
Both Governments are committed to the agreement to proceed towards independence. We intend that independence should come about in May and hope that the facilities that we have offered to enable outstanding differences of opinion—which are not very great—to be resolved will bring about that resolution in the next few weeks. We hope that the country will then proceed to independence, and I am glad that, to judge from the speeches we have heard tonight. all hon. Members wish the people of the New Hebrides well in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — CONSULAR FEES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill before us is a simple one, with a modest objective—to facilitate the most economical allocation of duties among the staff of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Diplomatic Service and to ensure that where such duties attract a consular fee we have the power to levy it.
The levying of fees for the performance of consular services requested by the public was introduced by the Consular Salaries and Fees Act 1891. At that time, and right up to the Second World War, the Consular Service was separate and distinct from the Diplomatic Service. The post-war period, however, has seen the absorption of all our official overseas representation into one body, the Diplomatic Service, and the parent Departments into one Department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The fee-bearing functions that were formerly the prerogative of consular officers alone are now carried out by members of the Diplomatic Service and other staff of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, both in the United Kingdom and at our posts abroad. The issue of passports and visas has assumed a volume and revenue-earned importance unimagined in 1891. While these functions are recognised by the Vienna convention on consular relations as relating to consular officers, there is, of course, no requirement to confine their performance to officials bearing consular titles. However, legislation as it stands at present confines the power to charge the relevant fees to consular officers alone.
Much has been done in recent years to reduce the size of the Diplomatic Service, streamline its activities and make the best use of its resources by introducing greater flexibility. We have, for example, introduced the concept of "small missions", which are mini-embassies consisting of two or three officers with the strictly limited role of supporting our essential interests as economically as possible.
Nevertheless, these missions have to be prepared, from time to time, to perform certain unavoidable consular duties. Yet to confer on them a formal, and therefore unrestricted, consular role would represent a dissipation of resources which ought to be concentrated on more essential tasks. On the other hand, for such missions not to be able to charge the appropriate consular fee when they have provided a consular service would be illogical and involve a loss to public funds. The Bill will close this gap by ensuring that the fee derives from the function and not from the designation of the official who performs it.
The application of this principle will also remedy a deficiency in the existing legislation in so far as the operations of the British passport agency in Belfast are concerned. The Bill will make it clear that the power of that agency to levy fees for issuing passports rests on the same basis as that of the parent passport office in London.
Our purpose is to update and rationalise the earlier legislation. At the same time, we wish to preserve those provisions of the legislation that remain appropriate to present circumstances.
I should like to explain briefly in general terms the purpose of each of the two clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 is the substantive one. Subsection (1) of the clause gives powers to prescribe by Order in Council the fees to be levied by persons exercising consular functions or, within the United Kingdom, functions which correspond with consular functions.
Subsection (2) defines what is meant by consular functions by reference to article 5 of the Vienna convention on consular relations, which is set out in schedule 1 to the Consular Relations Act 1968.
Subsection (3) gives the Secretary of State power, with the approval of the Treasury, to make regulations governing matters such as the levying and handling of fees.
Subsection (4) states that tables of the fees, or extracts from them, are to be exhibited in any office where fees are taken.
Subsection (5) repeals earlier legislation that is replaced by the Bill and makes necessary amendments to other legislation.
Clause 2 simply gives the short title of the Bill.
The House may like to know how we decide the level of fees. In 1970 the Conservative Government decided that fees should be set at a level that would in due course cover the cost of our consular services. This was in line with the policy of the Government of the day that certain services to the public that attracted a charge should be made self-financing. In this case, the decision meant that the cost of the passport offices in this country, public departments in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, dealing with consular, nationality and related matters, and the consular work of 150 or so of our overseas posts had to be paid for. An initial target was set of 80 per cent. recovery of overall expenditure.
In 1977 the previous Labour Government decided to increase fees further to achieve 100 per cent. recovery. As a result, for example, the passport fee was raised from £8 to £10, and other fees were similarly increased. The Government introduced further increases in March 1978, so that the passport fee now stands at £11.
It is the present Government's intention to maintain this balance. With the buffeting that we constantly receive from escalating costs and variable rates of exchange, this balancing act requires the utmost economy in our consular operations if we are to keep the level of fees steady. We have had a fair measure of success, largely owing to the buoyancy in demand for new passports. That is why there has been no increase in fees since March 1978. Of how many commodities and services can one say that much?
I can recommend the Bill as the good housekeeping measure that it is intended to be. It entails no extra staff and no extra expenditure. Indeed, by ironing out a minor difficulty, it helps to smooth one area of our operations and should result in a marginal economy.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Once upon a time, the carrying of a British passport was regarded as a right and not as something given to us as a God-given gift by Governments provided that we were prepared to pay a certain amount of money for it. I should like the Minister to confirm that no decision has been taken so far to change the existing British passport. Those who

travel a great deal regard it as essential that our existing passport documents should have proper covers. We do not regard suggestions that the passport should be printed in imperial purple as an advance.
Passport documents, given the increasing shrinkage of the world in terms of travel, should simply be a clear statement of the right to travel from one country to another. I hope that at some stage we shall return to that state and avoid the innumerable difficulties that now appear to be put in the path of British citizens. I regard as wholly reprehensible the splitting into different categories and the compartmentalisation, if I may use an appalling word, of British citizens into groupings.
The Minister, in moving the Bill, suggests that the whole point of consular fees is that they should equal, as far as possible, outgoings in regard to the Consular Service. The hon. Gentleman says that the Consular Service was originally separate from the Foreign Office. Some of us regard with disfavour the suggestions that the number of consular services should be cut down. There was a great deal of ill feeling in various countries when it was suggested that consular services should be consolidated into large embassies. I hope that the Foreign Office will not progress gaily along the path of centralisation without consulting areas where there have been consulates.
Gothenburg is a case that springs instantly to mind. A great deal of work was done by the consulate there, not only in the economic sphere but specifically in commercial work of tremendous importance to this country. If that was true of Gothenburg, it is undoubtedly true of a number of consulates elsewhere. If the Minister is looking for means of balancing fees, he should be sure that his sums are correct and that he is balancing them in a way that will enable us to keep as many consulates as possible in areas where they are useful. I say "useful" in the sense of commerce as well as providing services to citizens.
The Bill, as the Minister says, amends several existing Acts, including section 20 of the Foreign Marriage Act 1892 and the Marriage with Foreigners Act 1906. I examined both pieces of legislation, as they obviously had some specific effect. It is interesting that although both relate


to the marriage abroad of British citizens and subjects to foreigners, nowhere do they actually say "male" British citizens. There is no suggestion in those Acts that only male Britons should have certain rights in relation to marriage to foreigners. Both these Acts are different from existing legislation that the present Conservative Government are trotting out. The Conservative Government have no doubts about the matter. They know that women are inferior and intend that this should be enshrined in legislation.
This has happened despite the fact that in previous years the House of Commons actually passed without a Division a little Bill, introduced by my now ennobled Friend Lady Jeger, that provided that British women should have the same rights as British males in relation to foreign citizens. That has been conveniently forgotten. The wording of the Marriage with Foreigners Act 1906 is of use only in that it gave permission to charge more money for consular functions. It is not of interest in saying that any British subject who desires to be married in a foreign country to a foreigner may, if I can paraphrase, have that right provided that he or she has complied with certain straightforward rules on identification and status.
How things have changed. It is simple when talking about money. One can always find a way of bringing a simple Bill before the House. When talking about the rights of the female Briton as opposed to the male Briton, one is talking of two different subjects.
I welcome the Bill in respect of the fact that if we are to have efficient consular functions they should be paid for, but I do not welcome it inasmuch as I do not see any demonstration that the Government have thought about the implications of cutting down the number of consulates. I certainly do not welcome it because it repeals those parts of existing Acts which, however they were framed in the past, had one basic understanding, which was that British subjects, even if they wished to marry foreigners, were still British subjects whether they were male or female. Even though the first of those two Acts dates from 1891, they were both way ahead of the present Government. I only wish that we could

say that such a degree of enlightenment existed in Whitehall today.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: It is a little odd that the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) should attack the Conservative Government so strongly for their denigration of the female sex, because, after all, we have elected a female as leader of our party.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does it not occur to the hon. Gentleman that that right hon. Lady has absolutely no time for women's rights and that she is doing her best to destroy them?

Mr. Kershaw: I do not recognise that description at all. Anyway, I think that there is one ladies' right for which she stands up extremely well.
I should like to ask several questions of my hon. Friend. He said that the fees were increased again in 1978 in order to cover extra costs. As, presumably, we do not seek to make a profit from consular fees, I take it that they were increased in order to achieve 100 per cent. cover. If that occurred in 1978, is it likely that the fees will have to be increased again because of inflation?
I echo what the hon. Lady said about passports. There was a sinister plot—I do not think that it emanated from the Foreign Office, but it slipped through without the Department looking too hard at it—to give us a horrible bit of pasteboard because that could fit into a computer machine. I hope that we shall have no nonsense such as that. We like our stiff, awkward passports, which are less easy to forge, and so on. I very much hope that they will be retained.
I do not find it unacceptable that people who want passports should be asked to pay something for them. It may be desirable to go everywhere without passports, but if we want a passport for the conveniences that are attached to it we ought to be prepared to pay. Furthermore, it is almost the only revenue that the Consular Service receives.
The Consular Service sometimes does other quite agreeable things, such as enabling one to get married. Very often, one pays for that on the dot and, no doubt, in future years. But consuls often have to remedy disasters, such as


the personal disasters of tourists and others. I very much hope that in looking at the fees my hon. Friend will try to temper the wind to the shorn lamb in such casts. Is he able to give any progress report about distressed British subjects? Do they cost a lot? Do they increasingly repay the travel money that they receive, or does that occur less and less often? What is the cost, each year, of repatriating people who deliberately run out of money when they are abroad?

Mr. Luce: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall seek to reply briefly to some of the points that have been made. I do not wish to respond to the attack by the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) that it is the Conservative Party's view that all women are inferior. I would not dream of making such a remark, especially when my wife reads Hansard with great care. The foreign marriage Acts do not make any distinction between males and females; they apply equally to both sexes.
Both the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) raised related questions about the fees for the service and the cuts in consular services. The Government believe that the Consular Service should play its part in the objective of reducing the size of the Civil Service. We think that it would be quite wrong to exclude the Consular Service from that.
The hon. Lady mentioned Gothenburg. The consulate there has not been closed: rather, it has been reduced in size. But it is true that certain consulates in other regions have been closed. That is simply part of the overall objective, as part of the public expenditure exercise, of making our contribution to the cut in size of the Civil Service.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I understand that there used to be something called the European Integration Unit in the Foreign Office. Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that we are now fully integrated into Europe, and could not some of those units be got rid of first?

Mr. Luce: It is not just the Consular Service that has been cut in a small way. Every aspect of the Department has been

examined very carefully, and we are playing our part in every area.
My hon. Friend asked about fees. He asked whether, because of inflation, it was likely that the fees—particularly the £11 for a passport, and the other fees for the various services that consulates provide—would be likely to rise. As I implied in my opening speech, the demand for passports is increasing at a tremendous rate. Last year there were 1·8 million applicants for passports, and all the evidence this year suggests that the demand is increasing at a considerable rate. Fortunately, because of that it is not necessary at the present time to consider the need for an increase in the cost of a passport. As I said earlier, the cost has remained static since March 1978, and it would be refreshing if we could keep it that way for as long as possible.
My hon. Friend also asked about distressed British subjects. I shall give him a detailed answer, but perhaps he will allow me to do so by letter. From the evidence that I have received and from my responsibilities in this regard, I can tell him that we have a duty to help those abroad who are in distress, to bring them home and to seek to recover the money from them over a period of time.
So far as I am aware—I shall seek to confirm it—there is no evidence of any great increase in the number of people who apply for that assistance and who are repatriated if they satisfy the criteria. I cannot give the cost of that service at present, but I shall seek to give my hon. Friend a proper answer by letter.
With those few remarks, I hope that the House will be satisfied with this small Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Cope.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third lime and passed.

Orders of the Day — POLICE NEGOTIATING BOARD BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the recommendations of the Edmund-Davies report on the police negotiating machinery—Cmnd. 7283—which was presented to Parliament in July 1978. It is not a long Bill, and its effects will not be far-reaching. It is nevertheless an important Bill, since it will establish on a statutory basis the negotiating machinery that is essential to the long-term health of the police service.
Perhaps I might remind the House of the background to the Edmund-Davies report. For over 60 years—since 1919—police pay has been determined by the Secretary of State, who promulgates the rates of pay in police regulations. This is an essential feature of the Secretary of State's responsibility for ensuring the efficiency of the police service. Throughout this period there has been a national body, in one form or another, comprising representatives of the Secretary of State, police authorities and the police staff associations, set up for the purpose of considering the pay and conditions of service of members of the police service. Each successive body has borne the title of Police Council.
At first, there were separate Police Councils for England and Wales and for Scotland, and their role was to advise the Secretary of State in the exercise of his responsibilities. Under the Police Act 1964, a single Police Council for Great Britain was established to negotiate pay and conditions of service. At the same time another statutory body, the Police Advisory Board, was set up to advise the Secretary of State on consultative matters affecting the police service. In 1969, the Police Council was expanded to embrace Northern Ireland and became the Police Council for the United Kingdom.
Section 4 of the Police Act 1969 defined the task of the Police Council for the United Kingdom as
the consideration … of questions relating to hours of duty, leave, pay and allowances, or the issue, use and return of police clothing, personal equipment and accoutrements.

The Police Council accordingly dealt with all matters that were dealt with by negotiation affecting the police service, together with matters affecting police pensions. Under the 1969 Act the Secretary of State was required, before making regulations on pay or conditions of service, to take into account any recommendation made by the council. In practice, the procedure was normally for amending regulations to be produced to give effect to agreements reached by the council; changes in the regulations were rarely put forward by the Secretary of State.
In July 1976 a dispute over the pay settlement due under the pay policy prevailing at that time came to a head when the Police Federations for England and Wales and for Northern Ireland walked out of the Police Council and announced that in future they would negotiate only with the Secretary of State. At the same time, they declared that they would not be prepared to take part in the work of other national police bodies, such as the Police Advisory Board. They would be prepared to resume their former policy of co-operation only after more suitable negotiating machinery had been established. Since the Police Federations represent the vast majority of police officers—all those below the rank of superintendent—the Police Council ceased to be effective and the work of the other national police bodies was similarly affected.
For the next 12 months, morale in the police service was at a very low ebb. All ranks of the police service felt—with justification—that they were underpaid and undervalued. They considered it totally unjust that at a time when the police were assuming increased responsibilities, coping with increasing demands and being exposed to increasing stresses —including the risk of serious injury—many constables were finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. Pay was at the root of the problem, but their sense of frustration was increased by the fact that they could see no redress for their grievances unless they were given new negotiating machinery which would command the full confidence of the police service. Like members of the Armed Forces, the police officer has no right to press for improved pay or conditions of service by withdrawing his labour. If he


is dissatisfied with his conditions, he has just two options: to seek improvements through the statutory negotiating machinery or to resign.
In a situation where the negotiating machinery had broken down, increasing numbers of policemen felt that they were, in fact, left with only one option; they took it and resigned. At no other period in police history has there been such a severe wastage of experienced officers through resignation, and there were just two underlying causes—dissatisfaction with pay and dissatisfaction with the negotiating machinery. Others felt that the only way of achieving a fair rate of pay was by industrial action, and at the Police Federation's annual conference in May 1977 a resolution calling for the police to be given the right to strike was endorsed by an overwhelming majority. It was against this background that the Edmund-Davies committee was appointed in August 1977 to review the police negotiating machinery and make recommendations. Four months later, its terms of reference were extended to include the issue of police pay.
The debt that we owe to the committee has been widely acknowledged. It is difficult to think of any report that has been welcomed as unreservedly and with as great a degree of unanimity as the Edmund-Davies report on police pay. This was a well-earned tribute not only to the immense amount of work that the committee put into its demanding task but to the judgment that it displayed in formulating its recommendations. I think, too, that it reflected the esteem with which the police service is regarded very generally and served as an acknowledgment that the high standards that we rightly demand of our police officers must be reflected in adequate rates of pay.
The implementation of the committee's report on police pay completely reversed the trend during the two years preceding its publication. Between the end of 1976 and the publication of the committee's report in July 1978, the strength of the police service in England and Wales decreased by nearly 1,700. Most forces were under strength, some of them seriously so. Between July 1978 and the end of November 1979, the strength of the police service in England and Wales increased by about 5,500, to an all-time record of over 113,000. Recruitment is

now running at 40 per cent. above the rates for the 12 months ended 30 September 1978, while wastage is now about 35 per cent. below the rate for that period.
The present state of police morale is high. We want to keep it that way, but if we are to do so we need to get the negotiating machinery right. That is why the Edmund-Davies report on the police negotiating machinery—which went largely unnoticed when it was published in the same volume as the committee's report on pay—is so important. In general, the committee endorsed the overall shape of the existing negotiating machinery. It recommended that the new negotiating body, like the Police Council, should comprise an official side and a staff side. It thought it right that representatives of the local authority associations should, with representatives of the Home Departments, form the official side, since police forces are maintained by the local police authorities. It did, however, recommend three important changes.
The first change was that the new negotiating body should have an independent chairman and one or more deputy chairmen, appointed by the Prime Minister. This genuinely independent voice would not only provide continuity but might serve to help in bringing the two sides to agreement.
The second change was that the new body should have an independent secretariat. This would serve to ensure that suitable research facilities were available to both sides and so would overcome the disparities between the experience and expertise available to the official side and the more limited resources at the disposal of the staff side.
The third change was that one-third of the local authority representatives on the official side should be magistrates. This would ensure that the new negotiating body reflected the composition of police authorities, which are composed of two-thirds elected members and one-third independent magistrates.
The Edmund-Davies report recommended that legislation should be introduced as soon as parliamentary time could be found to give statutory effect to the new body; meanwhile, it should operate on a non-statutory basis. The new body, known as the Police Negotiating Board, was established after wide-ranging consultations with all the


interested parties in July 1979. The chairman is Lord Plowden, who was a most appropriate choice, not only because his qualities of judgment and impartiality made him acceptable to all parties but because he was a prominent member of the Edmund-Davies committee. The effect of the Bill will be to complete the committee's work on the negotiating machinery by implementing the recommendation that the new body should be established on a statutory basis.
I turn now to the Bill. Clause 1 provides for the establishment of the Police Negotiating Board. Subsection (1) provides that it is to be composed of representatives of the police authorities and the police staff associations and that it is to consider such matters as police pay, allowances, pensions and conditions of service. Subsections (2) and (3) leave the detailed arrangements for the establishment of the board—that is, the board's constitution—to be made after consultations between the Secretary of State and the bodies represented on the board but require the chairman and any deputy chairmen to be appointed by the Prime Minister. Subsection (4) gives the Secretary of State power to defray any expenses incurred by the board and to pay the chairman and deputy chairmen such fees as he may determine, with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service. Subsection (5) provides that on the establishment of the board the Police Council for the United Kingdom shall cease to exist.
Clause 2 confers certain statutory functions on the board. Subsections (1) and (3) require the Secretary of State, before making regulations about matters with which the board is concerned, to have regard to any recommendation made by the board and to furnish the board with a draft of the regulations. As under existing legislation, this requirement does not apply to pensions matters, in respect of which the Secretary of State is merely required to consult the board before making regulations. Subsection (2) requires the board's constitution to include suitable arrangements for reaching agreement on recommendations to the Secretary of State and for the reference of any dispute to arbitration.
Clause 3 deals with repeals and the short title, commencement and extent of the Bill.
Perhaps I might comment briefly on two of the more important Edmund-Davies recommendations that are not reflected in the Bill itself. The first is the recommendation that the new negotiating body should have an independent secretariat. As the explanatory and financial memorandum indicates, the independent secretariat will be provided by the Office of Manpower Economics. This has been agreed by all the interested parties during the extensive consultations which have preceded the establishment of the Police Negotiating Board on a non-statutory basis. But it seems right that formally the arrangements for the independent secretariat should be set out in the constitution of the board, which is to be drawn up through the consultations required under Clause 1(3), rather than through specific provision on the face of the Bill itself. That is the reason why the independent secretariat is not mentioned in the Bill. I can assure the House that there is no disagreement about the Edmund-Davies recommendation for the independent secretariat.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend has said what he has. Of course, he is entirely right. The independent secretariat is running, is doing a good job and has already been taken care of by the consequential arrangements under the clause that now retrospectively acknowledges its existence.

Mr. Britton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, in view of his particular position, for confirming what I have said.
The recommendation that one-third of the local authority representatives on the official side of the new negotiating body should be magistrates is a matter that I should deal with. The local authority associations were initially opposed to this recommendation, but in the consultations preceding the setting up of the board on a non-statutory basis they agreed to implement it. As with the question of the independent secretariat, it is appropriate to leave the arrangements giving effect to this recommendation to the consultations required under clause 1(3).

Mr. George Cunningham: The Minister has twice said that one-third of the official side—the representatives of the police authorities—would be magistrates. Just to get the record straight, would he qualify that by saying that that refers to the representatives of the police authorities in England and Wales and not in the whole of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Britian: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
As I said earlier, this is a short Bill and, I hope, a non-controversial one. It is, nevertheless, very important for the long-term health of the police service, and for this reason I commend it to the House.

Mr. George Cunningham: The main lines of this Bill are uncontroversial both in content and in origin. The committee to which the Minister of State referred was established by my right hon. Friend the former Home Secretary and the present Government have inherited its recommendations and are implementing them, as the former Labour Government would have done.
From this side of the House, too, I want to pay tribute to the committee for its valuable work and above all to Lord Edmund-Davies, the chairman appointed by my right hon. Friend. Committees of inquiry can be good or bad, but they are rarely a rapid means of disposing of a problem. In this case the speed of the work was as much to be commended as its quality, for the police service was passing through a crisis at that time and rapid decisions were needed.
But another tribute is due, and perhaps as someone who was not a member of the Labour Administration I can be permitted to pay it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) had the bad luck to be Home Secretary at a time when the pay policy which was such a vital part of our campaign—our successful campaign—to get inflation down and keep it down made it difficult to do for the police what everyone would otherwise certainly have wanted to do. The problems with the police in 1966 and 1967 were caused by pay policy, but that pay policy worked. It got inflation down

to levels that make today's level look quite South American by comparison.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South deserved understanding then, and deserves thanks now, for having been the man in the middle who could not escape causing resentment from that fact. He got more kicks than ha'pence for his trouble at the time, not least from the then Opposition. If that situation existed today, and if that negotiating machinery existed today, the local authority representatives on the negotiating machinery would find it a great deal more difficult to cope, with the rigid restrictions on local authority expenditure which the present Government have imposed.
The police service has emerged from that unhappy period. The recommendations on pay made by the Edmund-Davies committee set up by my right hon. Friend have had a dramatic effect on recruitment, as the Minister said. Wastage is down by 30 to 40 per cent. and recruitment is up by 30 to 40 per cent.
This Bill, on the surface, deals with rather technical and detailed arrangements for negotiating police pay, but behind it lies a more fundamental question of the status of the police in relation to local and national government. We should address ourselves to that fundamental issue in the course of this debate, at least to some extent. It was, after all, the feeling of some of the Police Federations that they should negotiate with the national Government, not with local government, which led to the walk-out about three years ago, and the new arrangements provided for in the Bill to some extent reflect that preference.
I want to deal first with the machinery proposed in the Bill. One problem that we have in doing so is that to a great extent this is an enabling measure. We cannot find in the clauses an account of just who will compose the official side of the board. The chairman and the deputy chairman will be persons appointed by the Prime Minister. We already know that Lord Plowden will be the chairman, as he is of the non-statutory board now, and we know the intentions as to the rough composition of the board as set out in the Edmund-Davies report, but we should have from the Minister tonight a better indication than we have had either at this stage or in the discussions in the House of


Lords. After all, the board has been operating on a non-statutory basis since last July. The composition of that unofficial board is no secret. It is right that the Minister should give an account of it in the debate and say whether he intends to make changes when the board takes on statutory respectability with the passage of the Bill.
The Edmund-Davies report made three recommendations on the board: that there should be an independent chairman and deputy chairman or chairmen; that there should be an independent secretariat; and that one-third of the local authority representatives from England and Wales should be magistrates. When I intervened in the Ministers' speech, he acknowledged that I had intervened but did not confirm that my intervention stated the truth. I think that it does.
The first two of those recommendations about the chairman and the secretariat have commanded general assent. The old arrangement of alterating chairmen was unsatisfactory in two respects. It deprived the council of continuity of leadership, and it put the chairman of the day in the impossible position of representing one side in the council and having also to try to hold the ring between the two sides.
Then there is the innovation of an independent secretariat replacing the secretariat drawn from the Local Authorities Conditions of Service Advisory Board. This change was supported by the staff associations because they felt that the LACSAB people were too close to local authority interests and not close enough to the particular conditions and needs of police work. The new secretariat drawn from the Office of Manpower Economics will not only remove fears of partiality but bring to the deliberations of the board an expertise in areas more appropriate to police work.
The presence of magistrates on the board has been a more controversial issue and the local authorities have been brought round to it with greater reluctance. Lord Edmund—Davies's committee was emphatic in its recommendation on the point, however, and the Opposition accept it, although some of the reasons for it as stated in the report are a little odd.
I read from paragraph 53 of the report:
While we appreciate the difficulties, we see as of overriding importance the need to create a clearly identifiable 'employer figure' for the police. Since the roles of central and local Government are perhaps rather vague, we consider it would be of benefit to have represented on the Official Side of the negotiating body all those with responsibility for the police service.
The report goes on to talk about the magistrates in that context. I do not find anything vague about the roles of either central or local government. By contrast, the role of a magistrate when he is not on the bench but is on the committee exercising an administrative rather than judicial function is rather vague.
Councillors are answerable to their councils, whether or not their councils hold them to account for this kind of work, and central Government civil servants have a clear line of command and answerability. Magistrates, on the other hand, can speak only as individuals. I do not imagine that anyone supposes that the magistrates on the board will take instructions, or even discuss in their local benches the work of the board, and I do not suggest that they should do so. Indeed, I see the value of magistrates on the board as arising exactly from this difference between their position and that of elected representatives of local authorities.
Magistrates should, and, if carefully chosen—I stress those words—will, bring to the board a measure of permanence and continuity and—dare I say?—an absence of financial responsibility that might be of value to the board. I stress the point about the selection of the magistrates. The job of selection will lie technically with the Secretary of State, but in practice, I expect, with the local authority associations. I should like to feel that the Secretary of State will keep a tactful eye on the selection. If magistrates are to act as leaven to the elected element, there must be no question of "Buggins's turn" in choosing them.
As a London Member, I cannot forbear from injecting a comment about London. The Edmund-Davies report states that magistrates form one-third of the membership of police authorities in England and Wales. That is not true. In London the Home Secretary is the police


authority, and he has no magisterial presence to leaven him. My understanding is that there will be seven magistrates on the official side, and I shall be grateful if the Minister will confirm that. In having seven magistrates in the England and Wales official side team of 21, we are giving the magistrates in England and Wales a slight preference over the local authority representatives.
I invite the Secretary of State to consider whether a London magistrate—lay rather than stipendiary—should be included even though that person could not be a member of a police authority, and the Edmund-Davies report recommended that the members of the board should be drawn from police authorities. As the Home Secretary is the only police authority for the metropolis, it is impossible to meet his endeavour to have both magistrates drawn from the various areas and people drawn from the police authorities.
Will the Minister also say whether there will be any representative of the Greater London Council or the London Boroughs Association on the board? If not, then not only London magistrates but London local authority representatives will be excluded from a body on which the rest of the country is represented. We all know the structural reasons for that, but it is for consideration whether those structural reasons should not be overcome in choosing the membership of the new body.
The Bill leaves to the Secretary of State enormous flexibility. It does not prescibe even the number of members of the negotiating board. Would it be possible, without disturbing any members who are on the provisional board, to add one or two to take account of my comment about London?
To tidy the record, perhaps the Minister will provide in the debate the answer to a question put in the House of Lords by Lord Ross of Kilmarnock at the end of the Third Reading debate which his colleague did not have time to answer. The question was: what was to be done about magistrates in Scotland? I think that I know what the answer is, but as the question was left unanswered it should be answered in this debate.
It should be useful if the Minister could give us a breakdown of the official

side on the board as it is now and some indication of his intentions when the board is appointed under the Bill. I am thinking of the breakdown as between England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the breakdown as between central Government Departments and the breakdown between magistrates and elected representatives within England and Wales.
The affairs of the police service occupy a good deal of attention in the press at present. There have been the individual cases of Mr. Blair Peach and Mr. Kelly. Much is happening in Whitehall and in this House. The Select Committee on home affairs is looking into the Public Order Act and into the issue of deaths in police custody. The Select Committee covering the Department of Employment is conducting an examination into picketing. More chief constables have been seen in the corridors of this building in the last few weeks than in the previous few years. That is all to the good.
The Home Office is conducting a review of public order, and the work of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure will be concerned largely with the activities of the police in questioning suspects, with whether the police in England and Wales should continue to be responsible for bringing prosecutions and with whether in England and Wales we should come into line with most of the world and the rest of the United Kingdom in creating a public prosecutor system.
My view is that the police will be better able to do the vital work that only they can do if they are relieved of the responsibility of the prosecuting task which can, and, as most countries believe, should, be done by professional lawyers. All this activity, particularly in the press, reflects, shall I say, some not inconsiderable concern about the police and their work.
What should our attitude be to the police? We should surely adopt a two-handed approach. On the one hand, the police are on our side. The criminal is the enemy. The police are our protection from burglars, vandals and muggers and from the moral degenerates who practise terrorism on the streets. In performing this role the police are to a greater extent than ever before on truly active service.


Apart from the Army, the police are almost the only people who are required, by the nature of their job, to engage in physical fighting. A higher proportion of the force is subjected to physical attack than in the past, and we must declare out support for the police in their work.
On the other hand, we must insist that in the discharge of their work the police stick to the law that we lay down. We must insist that bending of the rules is not tolerated just because the police are the police. Civil liberties are no good unless they operate in the police interviewing room and the cell. Policemen who break or bend the rules must be punished and removed.
It is inevitable that the police will resent some of the rules and control that we and the courts decide to impose upon them. The good policemen will resent the rules because they do not think they need them. Bad policemen will resent the rules because they do not wish to obey them. Let no one pretend that there are not bad policemen. They are a minority, but they are there, in a job that confers even on the newest constable great power over the individual.
The worst temptation to which any of us could succumb—whether we are in Parliament, in the press or in campaigning bodies—would be that since others are unfairly attacking the police we should right the balance by only praising the police. On the other hand, we should not say that because some people only defend the police we should concentrate on things that are wrong with the police. Each of us needs to defend the police when they do their job according to the rules, but we should criticise them and take vigorous corrective action when the rules are broken or bent by the police.
Among the people whom I should like to see adopting this two-handed approach are the police themselves. I should like to see it in the pronouncements of chief constables and in police magazines, where the language sometimes borders on the paranoid. The police do themselves no good by responding in kind to unbalanced attacks upon them. Greater contact between elected representatives, the press and the police at police training sessions might assist, and I ask the Minister to look specifically at that possibility.
Some of the bad feeling generated in 1976 and 1977 centred on whether the police service was a national or a local one and which of the two it should be in the future. As usual, we have a situation of characteristic British untidiness. In London we have a national police force. Outside London we have local police forces. In practice there is little difference between the role of the Secretary of State in relation to the non-London police forces and his role in relation to the Metropolitan Police force.
The Secretary of State is so attuned to his semi-detached status outside London that he does not choose to exercise all the powers that he could in London. That reflects the position of successive Secretaries of State of all political parties. Police authorities outside London do not control their police forces even in the matter of general policy. The new enlarged police forces do not fit easily into the pattern of local government. Police committees appointed from different local authorities in one force area present problems. The chief constables of at least some of these large forces fear and resent control by elected representatives.
Today, police forces are too big a thing, and too powerful a thing, to be easily subjected to control at local level. If anyone is to exercise control over the police, it is likely to be the national Government only in the person of the Home Secretary and national elected representatives in the form of Members of Parliament. Nobody else has the clout to do it.
It can be argued that by our present arrangements we give ourselves the worst of all worlds. Provincial police authorities technically have the power to control the police, subject to the limitations of what anyone can direct a constable to do. Police chiefs outside London insist on keeping police committees at a distance. If police committees in the provinces had less legal right to control, they might find themselves able to exercise greater influence.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am listening carefully to an important point, but I wish that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) would not use the word "control". The


police are not controlled by police authorities. Nor are they controlled by the Home Secretary. They are the servants of the law and of the Queen. There is no question of their doing what they are told by police authorities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I, too, am listening very carefully to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), and I cannot really relate his remarks to the Police Negotiating Board, important though the hon. Member's remarks undoubtedly are.

Mr. Cunningham: I shall try to make it is easier for you to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by explaining that the origin of the Bill and the disagreement which gave rise to it lay in the view whether the police should negotiate on pay with local government or national Government. I realise that I must not go too far into that matter, but I do not intend to go much further before coming to a dead stop.
I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me to complete the train of thought that I had begun, because I believe that my remarks are relevant to the origins of the Bill. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmonds (Mr. Griffiths) about the limitation on control over the police, and I hope that I have acknowledged that. I was using the word "control" as a shorthand description of the powers that are legally conferred upon police authorities by the Police Act 1976.
I was using the term "influence" for something much less than that. I acknowledge that the police are not subject to control by anyone with regard to whether they should bring a prosecution or upon what charge a prosecution should be brought. My argument is that if police committees had less legal right to control under the Police Act they might be able to exercise greater influence without giving rise to the same degree of resentment and opposition. In that case, someone else must have the right to control—and that must be the Home Secretary.
In London the problem is different. Because the Home Secretary is the police authority for the Metropolitan force, the local authorities in London have no say in police matters. There is no obligation

to consult the borough councils or the GLC about station closures, for example. Successive Home Secretaries have claimed that they have ultimate control over the police service, if only because they control the purse strings. Only a few weeks ago the Minister of State assured my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) to that effect in an Adjournment debate.
The Chief Constable of Northampton-shire has flagrantly broken the guidelines on jury vetting which were issued to police chiefs by the Home Secretary. That chief constable was advised by his prosecuting solicitor that legally he was free to do that because the guidelines do not have the force of law. The lawyer is right. The law was not broken by the police breaking the guidelines. What does that suggest about the ultimate power of the Home Secretary, as described by the Minister of State in that Adjournment debate? It suggests that we should recognise the reality. We should put power where it belongs—at national level—and consultation where it belongs—at local level.
This is not the occasion to go into those aspects in depth, but it is legitimate to go into them to that extent because of the origins of the Bill. Those aspects are relevant. On another, more appropriate, occasion we must return to them because they are fundamental to the policy on police forces.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I shall try to stay closer to the Bill than did the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) in an admirable speech. I shall also try to be brief. I shall be blunt.
The Bill arose because we came close to a police strike two years ago. I was much involved. The House knows my interest. I never thought that I would see the day when the disciplined and dedicated officers of the British police would vote, as they did almost unanimously, to take the power to strike. Many police officers, particularly in the constable rank and in the great Northern forces, were willing to strike. If they had clone so, the country would have faced a civil catastrophe. The police service would have split—between ranks


and between the different forces. As I said at the time, they would have lost their most valuable ally—the British public. It was a close-run thing.
This is not the time or place to throw blame around. I heard with interest the manner in which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, speaking fairly, sought to defend the record of the Home Secretary who was then responsible. I had numerous discussions with the then Home Secretary and with the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing Street. Had it not been for the appointment of Lord Edmund-Davies, the wise conclusion that he reached, the acceptance in principle of his conclusions by the Labour Government and their immediate implementation by the present Home Secretary, the thin blue line would not now be intact.

Mr. George Cunningham: I am sure that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) does not wish to give the impression that implementation was not begun by the previous Government.

Mr. Griffiths: I was careful in my choice of words. The previous Home Secretary properly announced in advance that he would accept the conclusions of Lord Edmund-Davies and his committee. Of course, when the chips were down he was able to accept only half of the most important recommendation on pay. He insisted that the full implementation would be over two years, although Lord Edmund-Davies had said that that recommendation should be implemented at once. The difference between the two sides of the House was that the then Opposition agreed that the proposals should be implemented in full and at once.
The first action that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretry took when he assumed office was to fulfil that commitment and to pay the full Edmund-Davies award at once. That is the most important thing that the Home Secretary has done since he assumed office, because he now enjoys the almost unanimous support and admiration of the police service. He fulfilled his undertaking to the letter.
Many of the remainder of the recommendations are implemented in the Bill. The reason why we have a new Police Negotiating Board is that the Police Federation, in which I declare an interest, walked out of negotiations under the previous machinery. The House should know why. Partly it was a protest because the machinery had failed to allow the police to keep pace with many other occupations. More important was the conclusion by the Police Federation negotiators over many years that party politics had entered into the Police Council. Far too often, as we negotiated within that body, we found that those on the other side of the table representing local government were not making judgments on the merits of the police case but taking a party whip from their local authorities. That is not entirely wrong. Local authorities must have regard for the majorities which they reflect.
The Police Federation rightly came to the conclusion that decisions taken in the Police Council were based not on a fair judgment of police needs but upon the party political balances within the municipal and county authorities. The federation was not prepared to accept that. The most important feature of the new Police Negotiating Board is that it puts police pay and negotiations outside party politics, both at the national level and at the local level. Nationally, it puts pay negotiations outside the party political battle because Lord Edmund-Davies devised an inflation-proofed formula to which both sides of the House are now committed. There is a provision for overriding because of national necessity, but police pay is now not to be bandied about in line with particular Governments incomes policies. To that extent, the police have been removed from the political and economic battle.
To a great extent, the police have been freed from party politics at the local level, notably by the involvement of magistrates. I know, from considerable personal involvement, how difficult it was to get local authority associations to accept the inclusion of magistrates. They made the fair point that since magistrates were not always elected but would be able to make decisions about local ratepayers' money, it was a bad principle, in so far as one should not have the ability to dispose of funds without the


obligation to be elected. I understood that view perfectly.
I believe that it was the resolution of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that persuaded and cajoled—I am almost inclined to say " pushed down the throats of "—the local authority associations to accept the Edmund-Davies recommendations on magistrates. He did that for one reason. It was impossible to say in advance that we would accept the Edmund-Davies recommendations and then, when they came forward, pick and choose which ones we would implement. The Home Secretary took the view that it was all or none, and he—wisely, in my view—took the recommendation on magistrates along with the rest. Consequently, I believe that the presence of the magistrates on this new Police Negotiating Board will remove a great deal of party political difficulty that has so annoyed, irritated and disillusioned the police staff associations.
I want only to say this about the two speeches that we have heard. This is not the time or the place for a wide-ranging debate about the police service. There remain, however, those parts of the Edmund-Davies recommendations that do not fall to be implemented by the House. Pay has been dealt with; that was part one. The negotiating machinery has been dealt with; that was part two. But, of course, Lord Edmund-Davies made a number of other recommendations. I can collect them together under one label. He proposed a measure of industrial democracy for the police service. He suggested that the time had come when responsible police officers, carrying a heavy load, should be no less able to take part in the decision making in the police service than anyone else.
Manifestly, in a disciplined service there must be command from the chief officer all the way down. No one would disagree with that. But in many other aspects of the police service, such as health and welfare, it is perfectly proper that the representative staff associations should be brought into the discussions and negotiations with police authorities and chief officers more than they have been in the past. I am sure that that is something on which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and I can agree.
Lord Edmund-Davies has made his recommendations and I am sure that the police authorities take them seriously. I hope that all chief officers will also take them seriously. But some are slower than others, and I can tell my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State that the Police Federation will be looking to the Government to encourage chief officers and police authorities to take fully into account the balance of the Edmund-Davies recommendations in respect of a measure of industrial democracy within the police service in the non-operational areas.
As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, the police are always in the news. On the one hand, they must carry out their onerous duties, yet, on the other, they must always be accountable to the law and to this House.
What the police seek today can be summed up as follows. First, they want fairness—fairness from the media in their approach to police activities and fairness from this House. Naturally, that means that we should recognise that there are bad apples in the police service. But it also requires recognition that there are many good apples in that service, which is not always given.
Secondly, what the police need, and, I believe, deserve, is backing. They have had backing all the way from the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and they are immensely grateful for that. They have not always enjoyed that backing—I accept that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was not involved—from the Opposition. At the time when members of the Cabinet were on the picket line at Grunwick and many hon. Members who are now in Opposition were condemning the actions of the police who were trying to maintain law, there was a deep sense of disillusionment in the police service about the lack of backing they were receiving from the House. I hope that that will never happen again. It is right that we should condemn and examine all those police officers who step out of line, but we should never, as a House that depends above all else on the maintenance of the Queen's peace, fail to give the police support when they are in need of it.
Finally, what the police require is support through legislation. This is not


the time or the place to pick and choose what the police require as regards laws on picketing, law and order or many of the other aspects mentioned by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. The Bill, technical as it is, is one element of the increasing demonstration of support for the police service that has been given by the present Government. I can assure my hon. and learned Friend —and I hope that he will pass this on to the Home Secretary—that the Police Federation is grateful to the Government and will give them all the support of which it is capable so long as the Government continue on their present course.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: Most of what I wanted to say has been said much better than I would be able to say it, but I assure the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) that I was pleased to hear what he had to say about the police force. I thought that what he said was sane and sensible, and I agreed with most of it. However, the exoneration of his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) for holding down the pay of the police did not, to many people, seem sane and sensible at a time when the whole country depended so much upon maintaining the police force to ensure the safety of citizens and to prevent people being mugged.
I think that it was in 1967 or 1968 when, as Home Secretary, the Leader of the Opposition ceased recruiting for a year. He then tried to turn the tap on. It is almost impossible to do that. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will bear in mind that we cannot suddenly boost the police, or any service, and then try to stop them dead in their tracks. The police must be supported all the time, because the basis of our life in this country depends on maintaining a police force that everyone can respect and that is properly able to hold up its head in the community.
I am glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) say that the negotiating machinery is welcomed by the Police Federation and by all police officers and constables. It has stopped the appalling lowering of police morale. I do not want

to harp on that, but many people have died, been injured or lost their possessions simply because there was not a large enough police force to do the job. We must be frank about this. While morale was low, the police sometimes did not try to do as much as their strength would have permitted them to do. I hope that the police force will receive the backing not only of the Government but of the whole House.
I am pleased that this small and technical Bill is before the House. It should be a major step towards preventing the events that my hon. and learned Friend outlined so graphically. I refer to the situation in which the police force found itself and the state that it reached.
In my locality many long-serving police officers who could have continued for another five to 10 years—for example, the sergeants and those who comprise the real backbone of the force—were leaving. We now have an extremely young police force. As we get older, policemen seem to look younger and younger. We must recognise that we have lost many who comprised the solid centre of the police force. The force must be encouraged for many years to come. We must not let it down again.
I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, who said that we must back up the force. I was appalled when I read a newspaper report of an incident that had taken place in one of the small market towns in my constituency. A gang of youths had set upon a policeman. He was knocked or tripped to the ground and the youths started kicking him. About 20 or 30 members of the public stood by, none of whom lent a hand to help him. As I have said, that is appalling.
We can help in many ways to assist the police—for example, by providing information and by keeping in touch with them as Members of Parliament keep in touch with the police forces in their areas. As members of the public we can help the police an immense amount. I wish the Bill god-speed. I hope that it will be an important measure for the police force.

Mr. John G. Blackburn: We have had a wide-ranging debate. I


shall not venture to make it more wide-ranging. My comments will be directed to the Edmund-Davies report. As I was waiting to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I reflected that 14 members of my family served in the police force. For many years I served in the police force. At this moment my son is serving in the police force. It is against that background that I applaud the arrival of the Edmund-Davies report. I am glad that the House does so with once voice.
Many things are said about the police service. When we reflect upon them, we realise that some of them are not true. It is so easy to say "Our wonderful police service has never been on strike." It has. Those who speak about striking to the ageing population who were in the police service in Liverpool will see tears come to their eyes. In 1919 they went on strike and they lost everything. We must thank God that the tragic position of the police service in 1976–77 was relieved and that the service was saved from the brink of disaster at the eleventh hour. It was recognised that it is one of the finest bodies of brave men and women.
It is true that there is a river of kindness flowing through every member of the police service, but the Edmund-Davies report arrived not one second too soon. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) said that we lost part of the backbone of the police force, but some members of that backbone hung on out of a sense of loyalty and dedication to the task, because they saw in the Edmund-Davies report the means of restoring themselves to their rightful position.
There was criticism because the pay issue was dealt with not immediately but over two years. Action was taken on the negotiating procedures. In effect, the Bill came from the secretariat, which is not embodied in this measure.
The decision was taken that the Edmund-Davies report would be accepted as the basis for building a sound police service or it would be rejected. However, the arrival of the report meant that there could be selectivity. We were able to be selective about what we would accept and what we would allow to fall by default. I shall listen intently to my hon. and learned Friend's reply because I am anxious to know whether Her

Majesty's Government accept the findings of the report without question, without qualification and without condition.
It is of considerable interest that among the many bodies that appeared before the committee led by Lord Edmund-Davies was the National Association of Retired Police Officers. The association has about 55,000 members. The evidence that was presented by that body received commendation. There are two sections in the report that recommend that the association should have the opportunity to discuss its problems on, for example, two occasions a year with Home Office officials.
I ask my hon. and learned Friend to confirm that the Government will hold fast to the Edmund-Davies report. Secondly, I ask him to confirm that the Government will accept the recommendation of the report and that the National Association of Retired Police Officers will have the opportunity to make representations to Home Office officials.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) said that it had been a wide-ranging debate. Perhaps it has been rather too wide-ranging. I am sure that the Minister of State will confine himself to the contents of the Bill and will not respond to some of the questions put to him that do not relate directly to the Bill.

Mr. Britian: I shall deal first with general points that have been raised during the debate. I am delighted that the Bill has received universal support. I am even more pleased—without wishing to trespass further on your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that everyone who spoke felt it right to include warm commendations and support for the work of the police. That will be appreciated.
It gave me particular satisfaction to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). From his words it was clear that the Government's actions and the measures proposed in the Bill command the support of the Police Federation. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) asked about the composition of the Police Negotiating Board. The board has 62 members, and no changes are planned when the board is put on a statutory basis. Of those


members, 33 are on the official side and 29 on the staff side.
The official side comprises seven representatives of the Home Department and 26 representatives of associations representing the interests of the police authorities. Of those, 14 are from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, four from the Scottish local authorities and one from the Police Authority in Northern Ireland. Of the representatives of the police authorities and the 21 local authority associations in England and Wales, one-third—that is, seven—are magistrates, five emanate from the Association of County Councils and two are from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.
The staff side comprises representatives of the police staff associations, including six representing the interests of the chief officers, six representing superintendents and 17 representing the federated ranks—that is, officers below the rank of superintendent.
The board is a purely formal body. Its business is conducted by five autonomous standing committees. Magistrates from London are not included or represented, nor are London county councillors, for the simple reason that it was thought right that representatives on the official side should be representatives of the police authorities. The Home Secretary, and not members of the GLC or magistrates, constitutes the police authority for London.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury raised the question of control of the police. I cannot discuss that at any length because that would go beyond the scope of the Bill. However, if the hon. Gentleman proposes to pursue that line of thought more widely he will have to ask himself some difficult questions. If there is to be genuine operational control at a national level, a Minister or politician will have to be given operational control of a national police force, however that is divided. In terms of civil liberties and of our other traditions, the consequences will be great. Alternatively, if we are to have a national force without democratic national control, the consequences will be even greater.
At present there is a division of responsibilities between the police

authorities in terms of administration and other matters. The Home Secretary exercises a degree of control by means of checks and balances. The responsibility of the police force to the law and the operational responsibilities of the chief officers of police are probably the best way of securing efficiency. Although remarks may be thrown out about the lack of responsibility and the need for control, the consequences of putting control on a national basis may lead to far less satisfactory results than are provided by our present arrangements.
Other issues were raised in relation to the board and the operation of the Edmund-Davies proposals. I am unable to give the assurance that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) requested, although I do not disagree fundamentally with anything that he said. However, some of the other proposals in the Edmund-Davies report, particularly those contained in part III, are still being considered by the various bodies. They have received a warm welcome. I note that, and I do not wish to say anything that might give a contrary impression. I have no doubt that part II will play an important role in the future life of the police service.
Finally, I shall take up the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk. South-West (Mr. Hawkins). It is not sufficient for us to enact legislation that supports the police and gives effect to the new arrangements. It is necessary to give support on a continuous basis, both through legislation and through the support that we give elsewhere. I wholly concur with that view.
I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will forgive me if I make one final point. I return to the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. The debate has not been contentious or controversial. However, I could not allow the debate to conclude with a bland acceptance of the hon. Member's gloss over the events of 1976–77. I do not wish to rub new salt into old wounds. However, it will not do for the hon. Gentleman to say that that was an unfortunate episode in the course of a successful campaign against inflation. The success of the previous Labour Government's campaign against inflation can be gauged by the fact that their


incomes policy collapsed in total disaster last winter. It did so not as a result of overwhelming Conservative opposition but because it was utterly rejected by the trade union movement and by the Labour Party. The incomes policy, its collapse and the way in which it collapsed fuelled the flames of expectation that will always arise at the end of a prolonged period of incomes restraint.
I do not accept, therefore, that the cause of the police was rightly sacrificed to the more general interests of the economy. The previous Labour Government got the economy badly wrong, almost disastrously so for the police. That is a truer view of the picture. I commend the Bill to the House and I am grateful for the warm reception that it has received.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

Further proceedings stood postponed, pursuant to Order this day.

Orders of the Day — POLICE NEGOTIATING BOARD [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for a Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom in place of the Police Council for the United Kingdom, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(1) any sums required by the Secretary of State to enable him—

(a) to pay to the Chairman and to any deputy chairman or chairmen of the Board established under that Act such fees as the Secretary of State may determine with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service; and
(b) to defray any expenses incurred by that Board; and

(2) any other administrative expenses of the Secretary of State incurred by him in connection with that Board.—[Mr. Britton.]

Orders of the Day — POLICE NEGOTIATING BOARD BILL [Lords]

Postponed proceedings resumed.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Mr. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair.]

Clause 1

THE POLICE NEGOTIATING BOARD FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. George Cunningham: May I take the opportunity to ask for one further point of clarification from the Minister of State? Clause 1 clearly provides for the method by which the chairman and any deputy chairmen of the board will be appointed. When we come to the other members, subsection (3) simply tells us that
the Board shall be established in accordance with such arrangements made after consultations between the Secretary of State and organisations representing the interests referred to in subsection (1) as appear to him to be satisfactory.
It was in that sense that I referred to the Bill as an enabling Bill on Second Reading.
It would be useful to know how that will operate. Will the members on the official side, other than the chairman and deputy chairman, be appointed technically by the Secretary of State on the basis of submissions put to him by local authority associations, or will the arrangements referred to in that subsection give the technical right to appoint to local authority associations? It is important for us to know that.

Mr. Britton: It would be better if I told the hon. Gentleman that later. I am not now in a position to answer with guaranteed accuracy.

Mr. Cunningham: I am sorry to hear that. I do not wish to be unkind to the Minister of State, but we are in Committee. It is an obvious question to ask. We are authorising arrangements of unusual vagueness. I do not criticise the vagueness. It is perfectly appropriate, but we are entitled to know, if it has been


decided, how the Secretary of State in-ends to exercise the powers that we are conferring on him. I should like an answer.

Mr. Brittan: I know that the hon. Gentleman would like to know the answer, and I do not criticise him for that. I have explained in considerable detail the composition of the board and where it derived from. I believe that I have accounted for the origin of every member of the board.
I am now able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the members will be appointed by the local authority associations. That is the arrangement that has been made.

Mr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the Minister. That is exactly the point that I was after. I was asking not about the composition of the board but who, technically, would appoint it.
May we take it that details of those arrangements, which presumably will be set out in some document, will he at least placed in the Library? I realise that there is no provision for there being a statutory instrument, but it is a document that should be available here and, I believe, more widely. May we have an assurance that it will be available in the Library?

Mr. Brittan: I see no reason why it should not be possible to produce a document setting out the arrangements. I believe that we can reopen the question whether it is appropriate to put it in the Library or deal with it in some other way. It is certainly not a secret, and I can undertake to supply a documentary description of the arrangements.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, REPEALS AND EXTENT

The Chairman: I have selected the manuscript amendment in the name of the Home Secretary.

Manuscript amendment made: In page 3, line 19, leave out subsection (5). —[Mr. Brittan.]

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an amendment; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

GIPSIES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

Mr. Michael Spicer: I believe that we have nearly three hours for debate, but from the number of hon. Members present I doubt whether we shall need that time. Even if we took the full three hours, the immensely complicated and emotive problems associated with the life, times and wanderings of 8,500 families—45,000 people—collectively known as gipsies would not be resolved.
One problem is numbers. The issue is made complex partly because cultural heritage varies greatly between different families. There is a wide gulf between the sense of independent pride and wealth of many of the Romany families and the variable lifestyle of many travellers of Irish descent.
In my view, the Government would be well advised to give intensive thought to what can be done to monitor the movements of Irish gipsy families. It is a contentious and difficult matter even to mention. I believe that the problem should be considered at governmental level. We should try to see whether an agreement can be reached between the British and Irish Governments on the control of Irish tinkers entering this country. I accept that it is an extremely difficult problem. It opens up a Pandora's box. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me that the immigration question with Ireland is already vexed.
The problem cannot be swept under the carpet, even if it is not possible to establish greater control—and I cannot


think of a better word—over the movement of Irish tinkers. Many of them wander backwards and forwards between Ireland and this country. I suspect that none of them pays taxes in this country and few feel genuinely associated with it. The problem must be aired. I should be grateful for a response from the Minister.
I accept that even if it were possible to establish greater control over the movement of Irish tinkers, the major problem would continue to exist. The tension in many areas, certainly in my constituency —many of my hon. Friends also have considerable problems—is created by large numbers of gipsy families roving around. There are 300 gipsy families roving around the counties of Herefordshire and Worcestershire, and the problem is considerable It is caused in part by the refusal of many gipsy families to conform to modern standards of cleanliness. Often gipsies are their own worst enemies. For instance, the litter that they leave when they move from encampment to encampment causes great distress to the majority of people living in outlying villages in which gipsies have been camping.
Local unhappiness is a result of the fact that in any modern society it is not easy to accommodate people who have no permanent place of residence. However, there are growing signs that a number of gipsy families would like to be able to settle in one place if they were able to do so.

Mr. D. A. Trippier: Before my hon. Friend moves on from the point about the problems that tinkers cause in certain areas, will he accept that whenever they have been brought to book and put before the courts they have been found guilty of stealing coal from people's houses, backyards and doorsteps?

Mr. Spicer: It is always dangerous to generalise. I should have thought—I spoke recently to my gipsy relations officer in the county council about the matter—that there was a consensus that, on the whole, gipsies are pretty unsociable. The police encounter difficulties and sometime dangers when they have to enforce law and order. It becomes a matter of considerable worry to the police when they have to tackle large numbers of Irish tinkers. In my part of the world there have been some nasty in-

cidents. I agree with my hon. Friend on that matter.
There is now a growing feeling amongst some gipsy families that they would like pens—certainly it is true in my constituency—it often causes additional problems where, in some cases, local authorities give gipsy families priority for orities give gipsy families priority for council houses.
The question whether the answer to those problems lies in the greater provision of permanent sites for gipsies is controversial. It is easy to propound the issue as general philosophy and then to say that there should be sites in other areas than one's own constituency. That certainly applies at the district level and at county level. Everyone is in favour of the idea in general, but when it comes to the specific site problems start to emerge.
All Government reports, such as that of Sir John Cripps, and the relevant legislation, such as the Caravan Sites Act 1978, presuppose that the solution lies in the provision of more permanent sites. I understand the force of that argument, especially when it is put forward in reaction to a widespread illegal use of land by gipsies.
The case for more permanent sites is stronger when it is borne in mind that the authorities invariably have immense problems and difficulties in moving gipsies off land on which they are squatting. Lack of permanent sites is causing local authorities to turn a blind eye and even to connive at the breaking of basic planning legislation in order to get gipsies off the roadside.
There is a case in my constituency on a farm at Atch Lench, where the county council gipsy liaison officer has conceived it as his responsibility to encourage gipsies to camp on private land, admittedly with the agreement of the owner, on which planning permission has not been obtained and which is now threatened with an enforcement order by the Wychavon district council. The matter is not eased in my area by the fact that the Property Services Agency is determined to evict all the gipsy families encamping on its land in Hattlebury.
Despite those strong arguments for permanent sites, it must be accepted that the involvement of gipsies in the life of an


area is frequently seasonal. In the Vale of Evesham gipsies have historically played an important part in the picking season, at the end of which they have tended to move to other parts of the country.
The question of the role—usually a seasonal role—that gipsies play in the local economy is relevant not only to the general advisability of the permanent site concept but also, and perhaps more important, to the issue of how quotas for sites should be spread. That is something that no legislation has tackled. However, any uniform dispersal of permanent sites, as between areas in which gipsies play a large part in the economy and those in which they do not, is inappropriate.
Whatever view is taken about the advisability of permanent sites, it is clear that the way in which the law apparently operates in respect of the provision for the financing and management of sites is ridiculous.
At present, it is the duty of county councils to find the appropriate sites. It is the responsibility of the central Government to provide the funding. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says about funding, because there have been indications that the Government are prepared to consider funding permanent sites this year but perhaps not beyond that. The district councils are responsible for the operation of the sites.
At the end of this crazy procedure, the county councils are responsible, as I understand, for picking up the tab on any deficits that are incurred over and above the central Government budget. Clause 209 of the original Local Government, Planning and Land Bill attempted to remedy that by placing a greater responsibility on district councils by permitting designation to be made on a district basis. One of the purposes in raising this matter tonight was to ask the Minister why clause 209 was dropped from the Bill.
If we do not believe in permanent sites for gipsies or if we cannot afford to provide them, we should say so. If we believe that there is merit in the greater provision of permanent sites, we have an obligation to see that they are properly sited, managed and funded. It is also

essential that the rights of adjacent owners should be considered.
My personal feeling is that the seasonal work patterns and the itinerant nature of gipsies makes this a national rather than a local problem. For instance, a permanent siting policy should be based on a national programme. That is the only way in which we can overcome the tremendous pressures on highly localised authorities that are considering putting in permanent sites.
In particular, there is an urgent need for the formation of a national consultative body. I accept that the Government are committed to abolishing quangos. My personal request is expensive, but one thing that is absolutely critical in any policy of better management of the problem of gipsies is that all the vested interests of the farmers, the local councils and the gipsies themselves should be directly involved in any policy which evolves. It would be disastrous if the gipsies were not involved. If one accepts that there is a problem, it must be tackled more rationally and reasonably. We cannot avoid setting up a body with a representative of the gipsies on it, as well as representatives of the landowners, land users and local authorities.
I am grateful for this opportunity to air this subject. I expect that there is common ground between us. This is a difficult problem, particularly in rural areas. It is a visible and emotive problem. Many Members have come to me since I put down this Adjournment topic and said that they have this problem in their constituencies. It may be increasingly difficult to stand out against the more populist elements in the constituencies, who may well turn quite nasty and unpleasant. There is an onus on everyone here to accept that there is a problem and to ensure that it is tackled better than it is being tackled at present.

Mr. Dennis Walters: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) on having raised this subject. Some of us may have become interested because of constituency issues, but it is a national problem that causes strong feelings and it is right that it should be discussed.
My interest was brought about by a recent case at Dilton Marsh, in my


constituency, which has tremendous problems brought about by the present unsatisfactory state of the law. The inhabitants of Dillon Marsh have felt strongly about it, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who was in Wiltshire recently, was left in no doubt about the depth and strength of those feelings. A site was chosen at Dilton Marsh only yards from one ratepayer's house and within 100 yards of many more houses. The local residents proceeded to picket the proposed site for many weeks and the county council has therefore been forced to resort to the High Court and serve an injunction on a number of residents in order to be able to proceed with the work.
It should be recognised that the problem is very difficult for the county councils. The Caravan Sites Act 1968 imposed a duty on them to provide adequate accommodation for gipsies
residing in or resorting to the area".
The words "residing in or resorting to" embrace all gipsies—those living in Wiltshire and those from another county who come in on a seasonal basis.
The trouble is that almost always, wherever the gipsies and particularly the transient gipsies are put, they cause much more severe problems than the resident gipsies simply because of their way of living, which tends to devalue property. This is understandably severely resented by people whose houses represent their life savings. Regrettably there is no provision made for compensation from the Government for householders. I hope that the Minister will comment on this matter. He has kindly seen me on a couple of occasions about the Dilton Marsh problem, so he knows all about it.
Before the site is established, the law says that a county council is bound to consult the district council and such other authorities and persons as the council thinks appropriate. If the district council objects to the proposal, the Secretary of State for the Environment must direct the county council to do one of three things—abandon the proposal, proceed or make an application for planning permission. If, after consultation with the parish council and the district council, the county council receives an unqualified "No", as frequently happens and certainly happened at Dilton Marsh, but

nevertheless decides to go ahead with the aid of central Government procedures, inevitably a great deal of tension and ill feeling are created. That has happened in my constituency.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South pointed out, clause 209 of the original Local Government, Planning and Land Bill attempted to improve the situation by placing greater responsibility on the district councils and by permitting designations to be made on a district basis. Like my hon. Friend, I want to know why the clause has been dropped from the No. 2 Bill.
This is an unsatisfactory situation nationally and obviously it is most undesirable and regrettable that situations such as Dilton Marsh should occur. They cause unhappiness and considerable tensions in local government which take time to set right. Something like clause 209 would have helped to prevent them. Why is it not in the Bill? The position is not satisfactory. It should be looked at.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for having introduced this topic and also for the short speeches made in earlier debates, which enable us to examine the issue in greater depth. As this is the third time that I have spoken in the House today, I should like to take some credit.
There are two sorts of gipsy. One is the traditional gipsy, the countryman and the picker of hops, who fits into the countryside pretty well. The others are what have come to be called tinkers. largely not from this country. To be frank, they are an absolute pest. Something should be done about letting them in and about clearing them out. Having said that, I believe that my hon. Friend is correct in saying that of two bad solutions the permanent site is the better one. If, however, there are to be permanent sites, there must also be proper planning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) called attention to a most startling case in his constituency. I have another—not, perhaps, quite so bad but one that nevertheless merits the attention of the House. This is at Moreton Valence, where a permanent site has been chosen by the


county and agreed by everyone concerned. I would not have put it there. It is situated in an area where no one is allowed to build houses. It is not exactly a green belt area. That would be an inappropriate description in a county constituency. No one else is allowed to build a house, yet this eyesore is about to be installed by the county council.
To make injury to the local people even worse, the local farmer, a Mr. Bamford, with a small farm adjoining the site, has been refused by the district council the right to build a house on his farm. One is allowed to establish a gipsy encampment but not to build a house.
Next door to the site Mr. Bamford has his stock and his barns, but no house. One can imagine what will happen to his stock, his barns and his fields when the gipsy encampment is full. All that he can do is to visit his fields occasionally, walk up and down and try to protect them as best he can. I believe that between them the Gloucestershire county council and the district council have made a mess of this situation. I believe that Mr. Bamford has been badly treated. Everyone has acted exactly according to the book. All are within their rights. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will not be able to reproach them for doing anything illegal, but they have done something that is not only silly but oppressive.

Mr. Richard Needham: I also have a problem concerning gipsies or tinkers at a place called Thingley in my constituency, of which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be aware. I should like to discuss the question of priorities in Government expenditure. We face immense financial difficulty. It behoves the Government to look carefully into the reasons for establishing such sites. A large capital cost is involved when other infrastructure services are desperately needed in other areas.
I should like to refer to a letter from a county councillor, one of my constituents, who wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services:
I am very concerned at the attitude which has been taken up by the Department of the

Environment, and I cannot understand how it can be that a newly-elected Conservative Government faced with the most difficult financial problems Britain has had to deal with this century and the need for the most drastic reduction in public expenditure can continue to press on with implementing the Labour Government's legislation and that Government's policy of very heavy spending on this subject.
The present Government are pledged to make very substantial cuts in public expenditure in order to curb inflation and many essential schemes such as urgently needed new school buildings, homes for the elderly, homes for the mentally handicapped, and provision for handicapped children leaving educationally sub-normal schools at 16 have had to be struck out of County Council budgets. Gipsy sites would have been struck out too, and not a penny would have been spent on them, but they have remained in the budgets only because the Government hand out 100 per cent. grants.
Not only is there a problem in terms of those sorts of services. In places like Swindon and Chippenham we are desperate to bring forward land for development. We find constraints because of the cash limits imposed on local authorities. We are not able to provide the infrastructure of roads, schools and sewage works, with the result that industrial land in Swindon has tripled in value in the last three years while that in Chippenham has doubled. Are we really saying that large amounts of capital money should be put into the provision of these sites while providing long-term jobs in new industries goes by the board?

Mr. Michael Spicer: Does my hon. Friend feel that there is any alternative? Presumably, if the matter is left and gipsy sites sprawl all over the place, they will have an equally detrimental effect.

Mr. Needham: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but the problem has existed for a long time. I am not certain that it is for me to determine Government priorities. By what yardstick do the Government judge that this is sensible capital expenditure while, at the same time, we are not able to spend public money on the provision of vitally needed infrastructure for the creation of many new jobs? If policies create unemployment in certain areas it seems, in a sense, pointless not to be able to provide employment in areas where companies wish to provide jobs but facilities cannot be provided through lack of money.
I should like to turn to the question of cost. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary


of State, in a letter to me on 19 October 1979, said:
We have looked at Mr. Jamieson's suggestion that the standard of the Hay Lane Wroughton scheme ought to be generally adopted".
That was a scheme put into effect for permanent sites near Swindon in 1973. My hon. Friend added:
However, the overall standard of the Thingley and Dilton Marsh schemes"—
in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters)—
will be lower than the Hay Lane standard.
The Hay Lane standard was costed, per site, at £4,147 in 1973. The proposed new cost at Thingley is £14,500 per site. That is a much greater rise in cost than the cost of inflation. The question that I should like my hon. Friend to answer is why the cost of £4,147 in 1973 should now have gone up to £14,500. My hon. Friend answered that the cost yardsticks used in 1973 were used only by the county council and that it was difficult to judge the relationship between costs then and costs now.
This is taxpayers' money. It is surely the job of the Department of the Environment to make sure that taxpayers' money is spent as wisely as possible. If the county council is their agent in the matter, why is the council unable to explain to the Department of the Environment the reason for this rise in costs in seven years? At the end of the day, according to my hon. Friend, standards will be lower than the standard that already exists.
My third point relates to planning principle. My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury talked about the emotional difficulties that arise when planning permission is granted for such schemes. I do not want to go too deeply into section 8 of the Caravan Sites Act, but, as my hon. Friend said, the county council grants planning permission to itself. One can appeal only when a planning application has been turned down. One cannot appeal against a planning application that has been approved.
In the case of Thingley there were objections from the planning committee of the district council, from British Rail—because its high-speed trains run about 50 yards from the site—from the Council for the Preservation of Rural England,

and from the NFU. The director of social services expressed considerable concern because the site was a long way away from schools.
Because section 8 restricts objectors and does not allow them to put their views either before a public inquiry or the Minister in an open way, and because there is no appeal machinery, one can understand why people feel so strongly about the issue. One is left with the suspicion that justice is being done behind closed doors. When it is an issue that inevitably creates the sort of problems that people face when tinkers live next door, surely justice must be seen to be done. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to look at section 8 of the Caravan Sites Act and see whether we can ensure that the siting of such pitches must automatically be decided by public inquiry. If my hon. Friend can explain to people why the pitches are sited there, the atmosphere will be much better. That is important in order to establish such pitches and in order to gain public acceptance of the need for them.

Mr. D. A. Trippier: I am grateful for the opportunity of contributing to this important debate. Like many of my colleagues, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) on raising this important topic, which has been a source of frustration not only to hon. Members but to members of councils, both county and district, throughout the land.
It seems that this evening we shall have as many different opinions as we have hon. Members in the Chamber. That is no bad thing because, as he said, my hon. Friend's main intention was to air the matter and to enable it to be fully discussed.
I can remember with mixed feelings my entry into the political arena. It began on a derelict site in Rochdale in 1970, when I flattered myself by putting myself forward as a Conservative candidate. I remember that on the eve of poll the three candidates turned up on the site where the tinker caravans were situated, and it did not matter one jot whether the people who lived in the surrounding area were convinced that the Conservative Party's policies were right; what really


mattered was which of the three candidates would get those tinkers moved off that site. It depended on the force of the argument of each candidate whether he would win the election the following day. Fortunately, I won, but I did not realise the amount of work that I had taken on as a result of the promises that I made on the eve of poll. In fact, for two weeks my first job as a councillor was to do nothing except concentrate on getting those people moved.
At that time Rochdale, which was then in Lancashire—it is now in Greater Manchester—was one of the first areas of the North-West to have experience of tinkers settling more permanently than before. For the rest of my speech I should like to differentiate between itinerant caravan dwellers, whom I call tinkers, and the Romanies—a word that has not been used so far—for whom I have a high regard. I have a great respect for them. They do a great deal of work and are not at all like the tinkers to whom we have referred so far.
As a Member of Parliament I am now threatened because tinkers will shortly arrive in Rossendale. In fact, they are now in the neighbouring constituency. I felt that my past experience would have served me in good stead for dealing with the problem, but the sad fact is that it does not, because, despite the fact that I have learnt a great deal about what they do when they move on to these derelict pieces of land, the problem remains how we can get them moved on quickly.
As I have learnt to my cost, it has taken an inordinate length of time for at least one local government officer, who has spent his time doing little else than trying to work through the hive of rules and regulations and laws of the land to ensure that they are moved on where-ever possible and as quickly as possible.
My solution to the problem is a simple one, but I do not think that the Minister will agree with it. It is that we ought to change the law and give more powers to the police to ensure that these people can be moved on more easily and effectively. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the argument that there should be gipsy or tinker caravan sites throughout the country. I do not accept that such people want to settle down on such sites. Had they wanted to settle down, they would

have done so long before now. They have within them a seeming impetus to move around the place and literally to be itinerants.
I have also seen at first hand a gipsy caravan site in operation in Oldham, which is not far from my constituency. There, the local authority spent a lot of money on providing facilities for a large number of caravans. It laid on water, electricity and gas. It made that site available because it was then easy for the law to be enacted, whereby one could move both the caravans and lorries off the main highways because there was a caravan site nearby. That is the main reason for the caravan sites made available under the Caravan Sites Act, to which many of my colleagues have referred.
Within two months the water taps on the site had been ripped out. The brass had been taken. Bills to the caravan owners were left unpaid while the gipsies moved on yet again. The ratepayers of Oldham picked up the bill.
I make this point forcefully to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. Thinking about the matter logically, one imagines that this process will be repeated on every caravan site throughout the land. Even if one says that one will put these sites on the moors, it will not make one jot of difference. The gipsies will neither pay the bills nor leave the sites in a decent condition.
Why should we offer these people facilities that we do not offer to other law-abiding citizens in our constituencies who pay their taxes and rates regularly? For example, would we lay out the amount that we are prepared to lay out on one gipsy caravan site on an ordinary touring caravan site for people who would use it, look after it and genuinely tour in our areas? No, we would not. Why are we genuinely sympathetic to these people? We feel that we are under a moral obligation not to interfere with people who wish to live as they do. We feel that we must provide facilities for them. I cannot accept that. They do not thank us for doing that. They take full advantage of it.

Mr. Michael Spicer: There are three sites in my area. The occupants pay substantial rents in at least one of them. I understand the point about the capital


costs. However, we can settle for rents and allow a project to pay for itself.

Mr. Trippier: I accept that point. All local authorities have difficulty in collecting rents from some council house tenants. My hon. Friend must accept that we shall also have difficulty in collecting rent from gipsies.

Mr. Spicer: Not the Romanies.

Mr. Trippier: I accept that. I refer to tinkers. We shall experience difficulty in collecting rents from the tinkers. Difficulty has already been experienced in the areas to which I have referred.

Mr. Needham: Unfortunately, I do not have the figures with me. However, I refer to the costs of a site. The rent proposed was £200 a year, or £4 a week. If the cost is £14,000 per site, the interest at 20 per cent. will be much higher than the amount recovered. The cost will be up to eight times more than the amount recouped by way of rents. The costs to which I referred will be much greater than any income.

Mr. Trippier: I agree. I refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South. We are talking about people collecting the rents. That means another officer. My hon. Friend referred to a county gipsy liaison officer. I do not know how much a county gipsy liaison officer is paid, but he must be expensive.
Believe me, I am trying to make matters much easier for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I do not want his Department to deal with this matter at all. I have no doubt that he will not agree with me. None the less, I still feel that the police should be given more powers. My hon. Friend could well say "Do the police want more powers?" In previous debates I accepted that the police did not. In this matter I am fairly confident that the police would welcome more powers to deal with itinerant caravan dwellers. They are as frustrated as I am that they have such limited powers to move on gipsies. That is the simple answer.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) on

initiating this important debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Westbury (Mr. Walters) and for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) for their contributions, and I congratulate also my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) on completing his hat trick of speeches in this Chamber today.
I must place this on record. It is surprising that no member of the Opposition is present to take an interest in this important subject.
I feel that I should first reply to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South because it is his debate and he has initiated it. I am aware that he has raised the problems of dealing with gipsies before, and I recall that he wrote to me last summer about the environmental problems of unauthorised encampments. I explained then that the Cripps report, published in April 1977, set out recommendations for improving and extending the provision of sites and included certain suggested changes to the existing legislative framework. I went on to explain that we were looking anew at this issue and at the question of legislative changes. I am pleased to be able to give a fuller explanation of policies in my response tonight.
First, I think that I should say a word or two about gipsies in the county of Hereford and Worcester. I have noted the constituency points raised by my hon. Friend. He referred to recent events in his county in the development of a gipsy site strategy. I understand that officers of my Department have been able to agree with officers of the county council on an assessment of the overall requirement for gipsy sites in the county. The county council considers that throughout the year there are about 400 gipsy families residing in or resorting to the county. Of these, about 100 families live amicably on farms or on authorised private sites. The county council has concluded that 230 families require to be accommodated on permanent residential sites to be provided by local government, together with a further 70 or so in transit. We have no reason to question that assessment, and we welcome the county council's efforts to make sensible provision, as it is required to do, within the terms of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.
I accept fully all the points that my hon. Friend made about the difficulty of locating suitable sites and the fears and forebodings of local residents almost everywhere about any such proposals. This concern has been shown by my hon. Friends who have spoken tonight because they are representing their constituents, and the last thing that we want is disharmony in the countryside because of the possible provision of caravan sites and the effect on local residents. Both the county and the districts have statutory responsibilities for the provision of sites for gipsies residing in or resorting to their area, and I cannot offer my hon. Friend any better solution to the gipsy problem than the completion of that task in any county.
My hon. Friend drew attention to the current estimate of about 8,500 families as the gipsy population of England and Wales, and the figures that I have given to the House as the most recent estimate of the gipsy population in the county of Hereford and Worcester indicate that its responsibility stretches to about 5 per cent. of that national total. My hon. Friend may consider that that is a not unreasonable burden.

Mr. Trippier: In quoting these figures, is my hon. Friend talking about gipsies, Romanies, tinkers, itinerant caravan dwellers, or what?

Mr. Monro: My hon. Friend has shown his knowledge of this subject, and he will know that it is difficult to distinguish between the various groups. I shall certainly talk a little later about the Irish gipsies, and, indeed, about the word "gipsy", of which I accept it is not easy to find an appropriate definition.
I suggest that the gipsy problem is not primarily that of coping with massive numbers and a rapidly expanding population when considered in national terms. The Cripps report estimated a gipsy population in England and Wales of between 8,000 and 9,000 families—that is, 40,000 to 50,000 persons. We now have six-monthly local authority counts of gipsy caravans, and the figures obtained in July 1978, and again in January and July 1979, corresponded remarkably closely to an overall figure of about 8,500 families. I must talk in round terms because, as I am sure the House will

appreciate, a nomadic gipsy population does not lend itself to precise counting and it would be a waste of resources to attempt precision in that direction.
The greatest changes and probably the greatest set of problems have arisen through economic factors rather than population factors. The traditional picture of a gipsy is of someone following a seasonal cycle of mainly rural activities. This is usually encapsulated in the phrase "the true Romany"—by coincidence, yesterday I saw members of the Romany Guild—and contrasted with the other picture which we all have nowadays of itinerants dealing in scrap metal and living in illegal encampments on roadside verges. These are not pictures of the good and bad gipsy; they only illustrate the changes in the gipsy way of life which have been necessary to retain a cultural identity.
Post-war economic changes have led to the loss of traditional sources of income, such as seasonal farm labour, and have led the majority of gipsies to adapt to other work, such as scrap metal recovery, which has brought them in large numbers on the urban fringes. The advent of legislation such as development control in 1947, restrictions on the use of highway verges in 1959 and the licensing of all caravan sites in 1960 have contributed to the loss of traditional camping grounds and made it difficult for gipsies to develop legal encampments for themselves. That point was brought out very strongly yesterday by the Romany Guild. The gipsies have a problem in getting planning permission even if they manage to buy land for themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud will be interested to know that pressure came from the West Country because of the impossibility of obtaining planning permission for farm land. This is very much a local authority matter, and it is difficult for Ministers to intervene.
As these trends have become apparent, successive Governments have first exhorted local authorities to provide sites under the general powers in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and then to fulfil the responsibilities placed upon them by part II of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. That Act gave county councils, county borough councils and London borough councils a duty


to provide caravan sites for the gipsies residing in or resorting to their areas and came into force in April 1970. It is the duty of district councils to provide the services and facilities and manage the sites provided under the 1968 Act.
Several of my hon. Friends referred to the criticism that many have levelled at this split in responsibilities. I think that the split in functions can be said to be a reasonable reflection of the need both for a strategic and co-ordinated approach to the choice and location of sites and the closest possible sympathy with local interests in managing such sites. I accept that it might be possible to postulate a different arrangement, but I am not convinced that it would be any change for the better.
The greatest need is for both tiers of local authorities to come to terms with their responsibilities and to co-operate in carrying them out. In July 1979 there were only 3,745 gipsy caravans on authorised private and local authority sites. The provision of further sites is surely the only stable method of dealing with 5,000 nomadic families without any legal right of abode. As the Cripps report pointed out, the problems of dealing with the entire gipsy population of some 50,000 people must be small compared with the needs of a total population in England and Wales of some 49 million. I am not in any way underestimating the extreme difficulty of finding these sites locally.
My hon. Friends have shown an interest in the financial implications, and I want to say a little about that. A grant system had already been started in February 1979 in anticipation of securing suitable legislative power. We were convinced that there needed to be greater impetus in the provision of official sites and that once such sites were available powers of control to ensure their proper and effective use were vital. We therefore put together a package of legislative proposals, which were included in the original Local Government, Planning and Land Bill, introduced in another place earlier this Session.
My hon. Friends asked what happened to clause 209. There is a simple explanation. I ask them to accept that the Bill was considered to be too extensive in relation to the parliamentary time available, and a number of provisions had to

be removed from it before it was reintroduced in the House. Clause 209 was a casualty. The clause that mattered most in the original Bill was that relating to grant, and that has been retained. It has been said that the lost clause might have given help to the district councils in the provision of adequate sites, but that clause was intended specifically to allow districts to be designated. When those districts had sufficient sites, designation would have been provided. The clause would have made little practical difference at present because relatively few counties and districts have sufficient sites for designation, though there are notable exceptions.
We shall continue to supply specific grant aid to local authorities for the capital cost of sites to encourage further provision and reduce the burden on local resources. We are greatly concerned that in doing so we should get value for money and not spend more than necessary. The current best estimate of total expenditure for new sites is £37 million. However, our current plans for public expenditure levels mean that if such a total is ever reached it will be over a longer time scale than the five years originally envisaged.
My hon. Friends would wish to know that in 1979–80 we anticipate spending £1·3 million as a result of the applications that we have already received. These applications have been looked at extremely closely to ensure that there is no wasteful expenditure, and frequently we have gone back to the local authorities to urge them to cut costs to what we feel is a reasonable level.

Mr. Needham: If what my hon. Friend says is true—and I accept that it is—how is it that we have had this extraordinary uplift in prices between 1973 and 1979, from £4,000 to £14,500, and yet standards are lower? If the Government have gone back and asked local authorities time and again to check on spending, where has this enormous increase come from?

Mr. Monro: We all had to face inflation under the previous Government, and we were well and truly landed with it during the last 12 months relative to construction costs. I shall examine the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham). I am aware of his concern about the site in his constituency, but I assure him that


there will be no waste of Government money in this context.
I am insistent that site costs should come down. Indeed, we have made substantial progress in recent months on that front, but it is right to say—since local authorities are interested—that it is our wish to continue grant aid. It is an important carrot, because the provision of these sites will lead to the removal of many of the unauthorised sites at roadsides and elsewhere that cause disappointment to local residents, and, in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury, a great deal more than disappointment.

Mr. Needham: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again, but if the Government are prepared to give grant aid to local authorities in this important area, are they also prepared to do something in what I am sure he will agree is perhaps a much more worthwhile area, namely, the creation of jobs in the form of infrastructure for industrial development in similar parts of the country?

Mr. Monro: I come from a rural area, and I am interested in the development of industry in the countryside where there is a possibility of rural depopulation. However, it is not my Department's responsibility to change policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham is obviously unhappy about the policy. The major difficulty will not go away on its own. The initiative must come from the local authorities. I am not thrusting this down their throats. The initiative must come from them. If they propose schemes that are acceptable to the local population, we shall assist with grant. I am not in any way saying anything other than that the initiative must come from them.

Mr. Trippier: Certain members of my council, not of my political persuasion, think that it is a good idea to establish a site, yet when it is suggested that it should be in their wards they do not like it. That is the problem. We shall never solve that problem, because such resentment is built up. I suggested earlier that we should differentiate between Romanies and tinkers. This is an emotive issue. There is tremendous sympathy for Romanies but not for the tinkers. Those

who read the debate will link those two groups.

Mr. Monro: There is pressure on councils to remove roadside encampments. They cause endless trouble. A frightful vicious circle is involved. We are discussing one of the most difficult of social problems.
Reference has been made to Irish travellers. This is a slightly different issue. There is known to be a certain flow of travellers between Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland, but no one has any idea of the numbers involved. The travelling tradition in Ireland is longstanding and might even go back further than any Romany tradition in this country. Control of such movement, either direct or via Northern Ireland, can be done only by the imposition of a general requirement for travel documents for all visitors at the point of arrival. This has been done under emergency regulations in the past, but there appears to be no merit in considering such a possibility in relation to a small category of visitors, particularly as common membership of the EEC now entitles residents of the Republic to enter the United Kingdom to look for work.
It has been suggested that many so-called Irish travellers in this country are second or third generation travellers within Great Britain, who retain pronounced Irish accents because of their insular way of life. Be that as it may, most long-distance travellers in this country appear to be Irish, demonstrate particular insularity and are likely to have special requirements if suitable and successful official sites are to be provided. Consequently, my Department has embarked upon a research project intended to identify the numbers, patterns of movement and particular site requirements of Irish travellers to ensure that the general policy of providing sites throughout the country under the 1968 Act takes account of these factors.
It is intended to put the results of such research before local authorities for their further consideration, and the steering group directing the research includes local authority representatives.
The Cripps report and everyone else peculiarly difficult to find anything that who has thought about it have found it


would give a better definition of "gipsy". Until something turns up that will be of benefit, I think that we had better leave the definition where it is.
It is important for hon. Members who are concerned with these matters to realise that designation is the goal of the counties and eventually, I hope, the districts. Once designation is agreed, it provides better enforcement procedures, and eviction can be carried out on a broader front and more effectively. Those counties that have achieved designation, such as Dorset, have found that it is of enormous benefit to have that agreement with the Department of the Environment.
I turn now to the important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury. He has been extremely assiduous in looking after the interests of his constituents who have been so bedevilled by events at Dilton Marsh. He has been to see me, and he has raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I think that he realises how carefully we have looked at the difficulties that he has brought before us.
My hon. Friend rightly went over the procedure at Dilton Marsh, the options that were open to the county council and the fact that in April 1979 the previous Secretary of State decided on the option to proceed with the Dilton Marsh site. In law there was no question of the present Secretary of State overturning a previous decision, so it had to be accepted as a fact when we came into office last May.
My hon. Friend may or may not have received a letter from the Secretary of State in the last few days subsequent to his visit to that county, but I have no doubt that he will know that both the Secretary of State and I are concerned and have tried, on occasion, to put forward possible solutions but they have not come to fruition. This is a problem that must be resolved by local authorities. The Secretary of State is fulfilling his duties and has no power to reverse what has already been done.
I wish that I could offer my hon. Friend greater hope for a quick solution to this unhappy problem. All of us want harmony in the countryside, and I know that this issue has caused everyone great concern and unhappiness. As far as I am

aware, it is no nearer solution than it was some months ago.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend wants to say anything further to me. As I say, I wish that I could give him greater hope, but this problem must be resolved within the local authority area.

Mr. Walters: My hon. Friend knows that I should like him to give me greater hope than he has just given me. I know that he and the Secretary of State have been in communication with the authorities. If it is not possible in law to reverse the decision that was made by the previous Administration, I hope that my hon. Friend will at least remain in touch with local authorities to try to ensure that whatever solution is found is as amicable as possible.

Mr. Monro: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. I shall do everything possible to assist, as will my Department, but my hon. Friend must bear in mind our limited responsibilities.
I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury, that this is a planning matter. I discussed it yesterday within the broad issue of building on sites in the countryside.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham referred to expenditure. It is necessary to weigh the balance of the alternatives. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale, if we do not provide sites we shall have more problems with unauthorised encampments and roadside camps, which are so unsightly and so unacceptable. We must carefully scrutinise all the costs. In recent months we have been able to reduce them substantially in a number of instances. If we are to adjust section 8 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, we may need to introduce new legislation. I promise to consider whether the adjustment may be dealt with administratively. My present view is that adjustment will need new legislation, and that will not happen in this Parliament.
I mentioned designation while referring to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale. My hon. Friend asked for more powers for the police. An eviction order is a matter for the owner of the land or the local


authority. The best way to obtain additional powers is through designation. I hope that local authorities, with the help of our grant, will press on and provide more sites so that we have authorised camping rather than a multitude of unauthorised sites.

Mr. Needham: I apologise to my hon. Friend for taking him back to section 8. I am most grateful to him for saying that he will reconsider it. Does he favour my suggestion to make planning more open and to allow applications to go before a public inquiry and an inspector so that some heat may be taken out of them? I shall be grateful if he will indicate the Government's view.

Mr. Monro: I take my hon. Friend's point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury said—he took much trouble to get the facts right, as I would have expected of him—if a county wishes to proceed, it has three options. If a county proposes to have a gipsy site, it must consult a district, under section 8. If the district objects, the issue must be referred to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has the option of going ahead, the option of abandoning, or the option of calling in the planning application. I am told that in the past the latter option has been rarely used.
The district has a right to object to a county proposal. I hope that when districts are considering proposals they will take into account the views of parish councils and individuals so that everyone concerned is well aware of what is happening before a further stage is completed and an application goes to the Secretary of State.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South asked about consultative committees. A number of committees represent the gipsies, and I see them from time to time. My hon. Friend rightly said that I should be somewhat reluctant to establish a new body. It is my Department's feeling that quangos sometimes cost a great deal of money for the work that they undertake. There is no lack of communication between the gipsies, my Department and the local authority, and I hope that that will continue. We must work together to reach a conclusion.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Perhaps my hon. Friend would say a little more about

that. What does he mean by "communication"? Do the gipsies have a genuine sense of being involved in policies, or are they simply called in and told what is happening?

Mr. Monro: I spent several valuable hours during the past winter meeting representatives of gipsies and of their different organisations. I listened to their views. Yesterday the Romany Guild spoke to me on the very issue of planning. Therefore, there is a substantial two-way flow of knowledge. I doubt whether a further consultative body would be advantageous.
The Hereford and Worcester county council has already consulted the Department about a suitable programme. We have agreed a probable level of provision in broad terms. The county has produced a long list of possible locations, a number of which may face difficulties and deficiencies on closer study. No doubt it will be some time before the short list can be presented. This is an important step along the road towards providing sufficient sites. I am glad that the county council is taking such constructive steps towards ensuring an adequate level of sites for the future.
This has been a useful debate and a number of useful points have been made. They will be given careful consideration by the Department. They will be part of our future thinking on this policy and they will have a place in any documents that we produce, so that local authorities and gipsies may know where they stand.

FLUORIDATION

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I make no apologies for taking this opportunity to raise once again the question of fluoridation. It is an issue that has been described only this week by Dr. John Yamouyannis as
the greatest medical fraud of the century".
He made that comment when he spoke earlier this week to the all-party anti-fluoridation committee, of which I have the honour of being chairman.
Dr. John Yamouyannis is one of the foremost experts in this field. He is an American biochemist whose experience and bona fides are acknowledged by all


but a few who have no knowledge of the man and little knowledge of his subject. Their passion for mass medicating the public's water supply with a possibly dangerous substance understandably leads them into total errors of judgment. Apart from his presence in Britain to explain the Burk-Yamouyannis study that indicates the link between fluoridation and cancer, which may take upwards of 10,000 lives a year in the United States, there are two other reasons for raising this subject.
First, there is the recent news that another half a million people in the West Midlands will receive fluoridated water by 1981. That brings the total number of those who drink fluoridated water in Britain to nearly 10 per cent. That area in the West Midlands includes Coventry, part of Solihull, Warwickshire and a small area of Hereford and Worcester.

Mr. Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend mentioned Hereford. Has he heard about the manner in which the area health authority has gone about putting its case across? Has he heard that the health commissioner has produced a document that indicts the local authority for the bureaucratic and insensitive way in which it has attempted to convey its case? Indeed, he used the word "pompous" in his report, which was published a few days ago. It has tried to bully through its case. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has heard of that report.

Mr. Lawrence: I have heard about the report, and it does not surprise me in the light of what I hope to say, which reflects on the regional authority, if not directly on the area health authority. At any rate, the extension of fluoridated drinking water is very much a Government responsibility.
The second reason why I raise this subject for debate is that there is circulating in the West Midlands area a quite disgraceful publication entitled "Fluoridation News", issue No. 4, January 1980, from the West Midlands regional health authority, and therefore published with taxpayers' money. That is another Government responsibility.
I do not propose to speak tonight about the infringement of individual liberty involved in forcing everyone to drink

doctored water, not to save life, as with chlorine, but merely to improve some people's teeth, an improvement that could be brought about by more brushing and less sugar consumption. It is a drive that is regardless of whether the majority need or want that medication.
I also do not have time to deal with other interesting questions of how substantial or illusory the alleged benefits of fluoridation are or the legality of fluoridation or the completely undemocratic process by which it often occurs. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) gives a further example of how some areas in his constituency have recently started to be fluoridated by the Severn-Trent water authority. I shall concentrate on some of the preposterous assertions in "Fluoridation News" by individuals and an organisation which the citizen has a right to expect will not mislead him and whose scientific conclusions such a citizen ought to be able to trust.
May I repeat a point that I always try to make when speaking on this subject. I am not attacking the honesty of anyone. For all sorts of reasons—and it is true that some of them are hardly credible—honest and well-meaning men, doctors and dentists mostly, become convinced that fluoridation of the public water supply would be a good thing and then proceed to make statements in support of that thesis which are demonstrably false or which cannot be shown to be scientifically true. The publication is full of such statements.
Before I give a few specific instances, may I give one general example. The headline of that edition says:
No truth in cancer allegations.
I expect that that edition is circulated to health centres and other places where the public gather. If it were a headline in the Morning Star or another daily newspaper, the public would know that it was merely an expression of journalistic opinion, without the necessary authority behind it. They would be quite likely to take it with a pinch of salt, and no harm would be done. However, when they see that it is an official publication, the author of the article being no less than the Birmingham area dental officer, and they see inside that the work of the same


regional health authority is endorsed in its fluoridation extension by none other than the Secretary of State, all caution will surely go out of the window. The absolute accuracy of the statement
No truth in cancer allegations
is likely to be accepted. People are likely to take the headline as being scientifically substantiated fact which no reasonable body could in any way challenge.
They would be wrong. They would have been misled by that headline. The truth is that the headline is just opinion, and an exceedingly bold overstatement of the true position, even for someone in favour of fluoridation. The reader would be very surprised, not to say alarmed, to discover that what purports to be scientific fact is no such thing and has been rejected as such by reasonable bodies.
Let me give two examples. The first is the judgment in a court of law in the United States. For five months in 1978 Justice Flaherty heard the best scientific evidence that the pro-fluoridation lobby could muster to argue that there was no truth in the cancer fluoridation allegation. For probably the first time, those scientists gave evidence on oath, and they were tested in cross-examination. At the end, Justice Flaherty—who has since been elevated to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court—ruled that he was convinced that there was truth in the cancer allegations. He said:
Point by point, every criticism defendants made of the Burk-Yamouyannis study was met and explained by the plaintiffs. Often, the point was turned around against the defendants. In short, this court was compellingly convinced of the evidence in favour of the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs were the citizens who were bringing an action against the water authorities on the basis that it was not safe to fluoridate the water.
He went on to give an example of one of the principal witnesses for the profluoridationists, who acknowledged certain unresolved doubts concerning the safety of fluoridation. When he was asked whether it was his testimony that he recommended fluoridation in water supplies, his answer was:
I don't want to state on that.
Later, on 31 July 1979, Justice Flaherty wrote to the mayor of Auckland, New

Zealand, who had written to him about the matter, because all the water in New Zealand is fluoridated. The judge wrote:
The trial brought into my court experts on the subject of fluoridation, and I meticulously considered the objective evidence. In my view, the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body, and a review of the evidence will disclose that there was no convincing evidence to the contrary. Since my decision, I have received hundreds of letters, quite a few of which have been sent by physicians and dentists, all concurring with my decision.
He continued:
Prior to my hearing of this case, I gave the matter of fluoridation little, if any, thought, but I received quite an education, and noted that the proponents of fluoridation do nothing more than try to impugn the objectivity of those who oppose fluoridation. I seriously believe that few responsible people have objectively reviewed the evidence. If you are interested, I suggest that you review the 2,800 pages of testimony and all of the exhibits presented in this case.
That is the first of my examples. I need hardly say that there is no reference to that judgment in Fluoridation News".
I give a second example. In Quebec in November 1976 the new Government decided to make a thorough review of fluoridation before implementing a Bill requesting all municipalities to add fluoride to the water at 1·2 parts per million in order to prevent dental caries. That governmental inquiry consisted, as one would expect, of 10 highly qualified persons, such as the scientific adviser to the advisory council on the environment, the director of a hospital research centre, the chief of the environment protection services and the senior adviser to the Minister of the Environment for Quebec. The conclusion was in favour of an indefinite moratorium on fluoridation from August 1977, which is still in force.
It is difficult to select just one passage from the committee's report, and I recommend that hon. Members should read it all: it is not very long. The report suggested, under the heading of "Pathology of Fluorides":
Fluorides are highly toxic for humans and a narrow margin separates an 'acceptable level' from a toxic level. According to Dean, at a 0.9 ppm level in drinking water approximately 12 per cent. of the children examined during the course of his investigations showed signs of dental fluorosis. At a 1.2 ppm level, 20 to 30 per cent. of the children showed signs of intoxication. It is not surprising, therefore,


to find a recent study published in the American Medical Association journal which showed that nearly 70 per cent. of the children living within a fluoridated area and receiving vitamins containing fluoride had dental fluorosis.
Dental fluorosis seems to be the first indication of chronic toxicity of fluorides. The seriousness of the diseases caused by fluorides appears to progress with the level of ingestion. … In people who drink greater than normal amounts of fluoridated water such as people with renal insufficiency, those suffering from polydipsia and people on dialysis machines, a number of cases of osteomalacia and/or osteosclerosis have been reported.
The report continues:
Two reports taken from the abundant literature on fluoride toxicity merit particular attention. The first one is a group of studies carried out by Rapaport which showed a dose/response effect between drinking water fluoride level and the number of mongoloids in the population. All are aware of the genetic factors which have an influence on this disease.
It goes on:
other studies have now shown quite convincingly that fluorides, by some still unknown mechanism, seem t o produce chromosome breaks and/or aberrations. These reports of unsuspected cellular damage are highly disturbing and merit all the attention of the scientific community. The second disturbing study is that of Yamouyannis and Burk which showed a higher cancer death rate in fluoridated cities than in comparable non-fluoridated ones. When first published, this study was ridiculed by public health officials. More recently, however, it has been reaccredited before a court of law as a scientific study done according to the state of the art. It is rather amusing to find that courts of law are doing the work that public health officials should have been concerned with. The Yamouyannis study is not altogether surprising, however, and many scienists have suspected their conclusions for some time.
What is implicit in this study is that fluoridated organic compounds and the fluoride ion may be as potent carcinogens as chlorinated organic compounds".
The report then says:
The possibility of formation of fluoridated organic compounds either during the water treatment process in public waterworks or during later use by industry takes on a new dimension and should be of utmost concern to all who are interested in Public Health.
This report, needless to say, is not referred to in "Fluoridation News". I wonder whether anyone imagines that anyone other than a handful of fluorofanatics would feel justified in taking the risks implicit in these two reports.
I shall refer to one or two particularly serious misstatements in an article in "Fluoridation News", which has the presumption to end with these words:

It is a tragedy that the misinterpretation of data can generate doubts in the minds of those who do not have the medical and statistical knowledge to enable them to make their own informed judgments".
The first misleading statement is this:
The first set of results were published by Burk and Yamouyannis in 1977.
That is quite wrong, but it is only a small point.
They compared the cancer mortality of the 10 largest fluoridated cities in the USA with that of the 10 largest non-fluoridated cities. The results they published indicated, they claimed, an increase in the cancer death rate following water fluoridation. These figures have been re-examined by experts in this country and in America and they have shown a number of fallacies in the original publication".
The article goes on to refer to some of those fallacies:
The figures took no account of age, sex and ethnic structure of the population. It is well known that cancer is strongly related to age and to a lesser extent sex and race. When the mortality data is standardised to account for these factors, no association is found".
The first of those statements—that
The figures took no account of age, sex and ethnic structure of the population
—is simply untrue. All except the earliest papers of Burk and Yamouyannis have taken those factors into account. Anyone who denies that merely proves that he has not bothered to read the latest studies. That is a complaint that can commonly be made against those who often speak loudest in favour of fluoridation. That is what Justice Flaherty said in the court case about that subject:
Dr. David J. Newell who has a Ph.D. in medical statistics, and is head of the Department of Medical Statistics at the University of Newcastle, England, testified that the Burk-Yamouyannis Study did not take age, race and sex variables into account. For example, Dr. Newell stated the cities' populations were changed drastically between the years 1950 to 1970, due to the large influx of black people. Statistically, black people have a higher incidence of cancer than white people.
Responding specifically to this criticism, Dr. Yamouyannis testified that the growth of cancer rates for non-whites coincides with their influx from rural to urban centres, and that there is no racial difference in susceptibility. Thus, he argued, the different racial mixtures of the subject cities are of no consequence. Furthermore, Dr. Yamouyannis stated that many cities stopped keeping records based on race in the late 1950s and the early 1960s, and that for the 1970 census the available figures were no longer reliable at all, since people were classified by asking them how they wished to be identified, rather than on a firmly defined basis.


In response to the criticism that the Burk-Yamouyannis study age groups were too large and therefore distorted the results, Dr. Yamouyannis explained that he had broken the groups down into smaller ones to see which population groups were increasing in number, but he had found that the smaller groups had essentially the same increases in numbers as the larger ones, so the larger group could be properly used.
As for the criticism of the sex variable not being taken into account, Dr. Yamouyannis responded that the proportion of males to females actually went down in the fluoridated cities as opposed to the non-fluoridated cities. Therefore, since males have a higher rate of cancer than females, if he had adjusted for sex in the manner suggested by his critics, there would have been an even larger cancer mortality than the Burk-Yamouyannis Study revealed".
The judge seemed to think, and common sense seems to support, that the statement regarding age, sex and race in "Fluoridation News" is simply untrue. The statement
when the mortality data is standardised to account for these factors, no association is found
is simply untrue. The standardisation referred to was based, first, on data now admitted to have been inaccurate and, secondly, by drawing a line on a graph that only joins the starting point to the end point and ignores the other nine-tenths of the points. That is atrociously unscientific. On the contrary, once errors and omissions have been corrected, Burk and Yamouyannis said, an association between fluoride and cancer was shown in all the studies considered.
I could go on to indicate other misleading and false statements in the same article. Burk ignored sites where there was a decrease in cancer incidence or failed to read Kinlen's tables and footnotes correctly. I have no wish to bore the House more than is necessary. I merely make the point that in that article in "Fluoridation News" what is alleged to be scientific fact is at the lowest wrong and at the highest disputed by reputable scientists. Therefore, the article is misleading and ought not to be in circulation. Certainly it ought not to be in circulation through taxpayers' money.
But that article is not the only misleading matter in "Fluoridation News". Incidentally, I have provided my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary with a copy so that he knows to what I am referring. Another article by a former opponent of

fluoridation tells why he changed his mind and saw the light. It is entitled
Million reasons for a change of heart
and states:
I became convinced that the merits of the anti-fluoride case are in inverse ratio to the noises they make—says a former opponent".
He explains that among other reasons the figures for Birmingham, since fluoridation in 1964, support the benefits of fluoridation. He says:
The number of children in Birmingham making emergency visits to dentists with acute toothache dropped from 10,000 in 1964, the year of fluoridation, to 2,000 in 1975. The number of children given general anaesthetics for tooth removal dropped from 18,400 to 3,800 in the same period. In Wolverhampton it increased by 30 per cent. In Birmingham one in 3,500 children was supplied with false teeth: in Wolverhampton the figure was one in 280–12 times higher.
In order to reach those conclusions, there would have to be a scientific consideration of the data. In order to say what effect fluoridation has had, one must be able to show what the treatment of teeth was like in the period up to fluoridation. There are two serious things wrong with the conclusion that that writer draws from the undisputed figures. The figures that he gives are not challenged, because they were the figures that were given to me by my hon. Friend in a parliamentary answer.
First, those figures are misleadingly selective. A fuller consideration of the figures shows that in 1965, before fluoridation, 113,536 children were examined, 44,815 fillings were made to permanent teeth and 4,367 fillings were made to temporary teeth. In 1976, after fluoridation's magic had more than halved dental decay—which is the boast that is put around in the West Midlands area—106,680 children were examined, 42,927 fillings were made to permanent teeth and 15,616 fillings were made to temporary teeth. In other words, per child examined, fillings to permanent teeth increased by 2 per cent. and to temporary teeth by 281 per cent. Therefore, a selective choice of figures is hardly a good scientific basis for feeding those members of the public who are expected to read "Fluoridation News" and to accept the statements therein as being scientific truth.
Secondly, the figures show an immediate sharp drop on fluoridation, which


would be truly miraculous if the cause were fluoridation, as it takes several years before it stops teeth decaying. More likely, what happened in Birmingham was that with the public dispute and argument over fluoridation the attention that was drawn to it in the newspapers and the discussion about it with dentists, there was a campaign that alerted people to the dangers of dental caries. More teeth were brushed. More care was taken of children's teeth. Perhaps parents read more and learnt that a better diet helped to improve teeth. Perhaps the fashion of general anaesthetics for teeth removal, or for taking out a tooth when it could be filled, changed. Those are far more realistic explanations, in the light of the figures that I gave, than that immediately after the introduction of fluoridation there was a sudden drop in dental decay. Those figures are either unscientific and, therefore, false or, at their highest, disputed by statisticians.
Is it not time that the Government started to take more seriously new evidence about cancer and the benefits of fluoridation? We all respect careful scientific analysis, but is there any laboratory evidence in the world showing that fluoridation improves teeth or proving that fluoridation is completely safe? The opponents of fluoridation have laboratory evidence that it is not safe. I dealt with that matter in my last speech on the subject on 23 January, when the House debated the Merrison report on the National Health Service. That report recommended fluoridation, although it was not within the committee's terms of reference. It heard no evidence on the subject, even if the subject had been within its terms of reference.
This is the usual syndrome. The medical authorities all say "If Professor Sir Richard Doll and Leo Kinlen at Oxford university say that it is safe, that is OK for us." That is still just the opinion of two men. One part at least of their inquiries was based on inaccurate data. That was admitted. The fact that the data were inaccurate is not important. What is important is the fact that those two highly thought of and reputable gentlemen are as capable as anyone else of slapdash work. That is not a basis for building a whole theory of safety in the face of other evidence when the re-

sults are 10,000 deaths a year in America and perhaps 2,000 a year in this country.
Certainly, if there is any doubt in the matter the risks are enormous. For the safety of the people, the benefit of the doubt must be given to those who can show evidence that fluoridation is unsafe. The Government must put aside the calcified blinkers of the Department and consider the evidence afresh.
I conclude by reading a letter that was written to Justice Flaherty by the chancellor of Fairleigh Dickinson university. It encapsulates what is wrong with the debate on fluoridation. Perhaps it is an indication of the way in which I hope the debate will progress. The chancellor, Peter Sammartino, in a letter to Judge Flaherty dated 19 December 1978, wrote:
Having founded a school of dentistry I accepted fluoridation like everyone else and had faith in my faculty, in the ADA"—
the American Dental Association—
in the public Health Service, which made sizeable grants to our school.
Then one day I read somewhere that water for kidney machines had to be defluoridated. Since I am prone to kidney stones, the statement aroused my interest. I found that the fluorides combine with the calcium in the body and could cause serious illness or even, death.
I began to ask my dentists, all of whom are specialists in the field and for whom I have a great regard. In a pleasant way they said, Look Peter, this is not your field. Fluoridation is good and it decreases cavities by 60 per cent.'
But I began to read and the more I read the more I became conviced that fluoridation was evil. I began to prod the ADA. Again, the cavalier response: Why everyone knows fluoridation is good. Do you think the Public Health Service would be for it if it wasn't good?'
So I began to poke around in Washington. I ran into a wall of gobbledegook. They pointed majestically to the Kingston-Newburgh experiment. Well, I read the report of that experiment six times. That was the most unscientific and souped-up experiment ever foisted as a breakthrough.
The strange part of it all is that the Department of Agriculture tells farmers not to use fluoridated water, and of course, the FDA
—the Food and Drug Administration—
forbade the manufacture of pre-natal fluoride tablets.
But even if the case for the 60 per cent. decrease had been established (which it hasn't) the fact remains that in the United States and in a number of other countries it is becoming abundantly clear that the medical side-effects are most serious.


And then, even if fluoridation were effective and even if there were no side-effects, the forced medication is totally repugnant to basic principles.
Now, it is becoming evident that fluoridated communities have eventually a higher rate of tooth defects than non-fluoridated communities.
I am 74 and it doesn't make too much difference to me, but when I think how every day, in fluoridated communities, we are adding a little poison to bodies, knowing full well that some of it (probably about 40 per cent.) is cumulative I cringe at our stupidity.
Well, apart from Eire, Great Britain is the only country in the Common Market that now fluoridates its water. Apart from Portugal, a scheme in Basle in Switzerland and, I think, a scheme in Finland, no other countries in Europe fluoridate their water. The reason may be political, but my hunch is that even if there is no merit in any of the criticisms that I have read out tonight there is a lot of scientific support for the decisions that have been taken by those countries either not to touch fluoridation or to discontinue it if they have had it.
I therefore implore my hon. Friend and his Department to take their blinkers off and to look again in an objective way at the sum total of the evidence. I am sure that in the end they will agree that on an issue of such importance, upon which medical and scientific men of great calibre conflict, it would be totally unjustified to continue to fluoridate any water in this country.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has done the House a service in raising this issue. The catalogue of scientific data which he has assembled and presented is persuasive and interesting, and it certainly behoves the Minister and the Department to reply objectively and to reassure people on this matter.
However, I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to take a rather different line from that which he has taken in his speech. I do so without any pretence of having great knowledge of this matter or any scientific array of figures in front of me, but as a former secretary of the all-party dental health group in the House of Commons I have taken a general interest in this matter. My understanding has always been that the majority of

principal health authorities in this country and internationally support rather than oppose fluoridation.
My hon. Friend dealt almost entirely with the scientific and medical evidence that has been assembled rather than with the point of principle of compulsory medication by adding fluoride to water supplies. It is important to differentiate between the voluntary and the compulsory use of fluoride. Presumably, if one takes as true my hon. Friend's conclusions, there is a case for reviewing the voluntary use of fluoride in its various forms in this country and elsewhere.
My view, on balance, is that fluoride is a considerable help in reducing the incidence of caries. An extraordinary fact which I found difficult to believe when I first heard it, but it is true, is that one in three people over the age of 16 have no teeth. In most cases tooth decay sets in in the first 16 years of a person's life. That is when fluoride can be of most assistance. Once people are adults, there is perhaps less need for fluoride.
It is important to understand that, however far we go down the road of voluntary dental health education programmes, however much we encourage the voluntary use of fluoride, we shall never be able to reach out to the many families and individuals who are entitled to basic standards of dental health without leaving open the option of using fluoride through the public water supplies. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure us on the medical evidence and will not close the door to the use of fluoride in water.
I hope that even those who question on a point of principle or on scientific evidence the addition of fluoride to public water supplies will recognise that there is a place for the voluntary use of fluoride. One of the most valuable methods of administering fluoride as a means of encouraging dental health is through fluoride mouthwashes for children at school. This has been done in this country and abroad to some extent but not generally. Here, parents have an option, if they object to the use of fluoride, not to let their children use the mouthwash. If they feel that it is a valuable means of ensuring dental health, they have that option open to them, an option which perhaps they would not take if they had to buy fluoride pills.
I have a young daughter, and as soon as she is able to take them I intend to give her a daily dose of fluoride pills to ensure that she benefits from the protection that fluoride can provide. Can the Minister say anything about the extent to which his Department has considered making fluoride pills available through the National Health Service? I understand that they cannot be obtained on an NHS prescription. Although they are by no means expensive, the cost is sufficient to put many people off.
Perhaps more expensively but maybe most effectively, dentists can treat the teeth of young children with fluoride in various ways, thus providing the most adequate protection and the most effective treatment to ensure dental health in adult life. One method used is the topical application of fluoride. That is a simple procedure with young children whereby a mould is placed over the teeth on which the fluoride sets a fine coating. That is sufficient to protect children's teeth against caries for a long time. There is also a more effective method of fissure sealant whereby fluoride is introduced into the cracks in teeth, thus ensuring a more secure moulding protection for teeth. Although this procedure is more expensive and slightly more complicated to apply, it is one of the most effective means of treatment. Will the Minister say something about the extent to which such treatment is available from dentists under the NHS?
Returning to the question of the compulsory fluoridation of water supplies, it is appropriate for those of us who support fluoridation to question why we make out a case for the introduction of such a chemical into our water supply. My political leanings and personal inclination are against such compulsory measures. Nevertheless, the high incidence of caries in adulthood and the tremendous costs that we all have to meet for dental treatment either under the NHS or through private practice are sufficient to justify the case for leaving the door open on this question.
My understanding is that the financial cost of the application of fluoride through water supplies is infinitesimal compared with all the other options that I have described. The evidence that I have seen—and I recognise the force of the evidence presented by my hon. Friend the Member

for Burton—does not lead me to the alarmist conclusion to which his evidence led him.
In to some extent putting the opposite view and, in so doing, representing a number of other hon. Members who are not able to participate in the debate, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will understand that there are views on both sides. It would be against my wishes and, I believe, those of a number of other Members if he were to respond by indicating that the door on the discussion of public fluoridation of water supplies will be closed.

Mr. Lawrence: I wonder whether I might put a point to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), bearing in mind his concern for personal freedom and the problems of compulsion. Suppose that one set of scientists said that fluoride was safe and another set of scientists, equally credible, said that it was unsafe. Would not my hon. Friend concede that there was a doubt about the question of safety? If the effect of there being fluoride in the water was to kill one person—never mind hundreds or thousands—would his concept of freedom not drive him to the conclusion that the risk should not be run, and that if there was a doubt there should not be fluoridation? If his answer is "Yes", why does he take the attitude that he has manifested in the course of an otherwise interesting speech?

Mr. Nelson: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's intervention is "Yes". If a number of scientific experts came to the conclusion that fluoride was entirely safe, and an equal number decided that it was entirely unsafe, I would be a good deal more concerned than I am. My understanding—even after my hon. Friend's speech—is that that is not the case. My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of medical opinion is that fluoridation is safe.
Even if one decides that fluoridation is probably safe, if it is responsible for one death out of millions one must ask whether it is justified. I do not like to compromise on issues of principle. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton does not like to compromise either. I am strongly against the compulsion involved in the seat belts issue, for example. However, on this issue one must make a judgment. It is not entirely


black or white, good or bad or entirely true or false. That is why a political decision and judgment are involved.
From what I have read, the majority of evidence indicates overwhelmingly that fluoridation is beneficial to dental health. It is likely to reduce substantially the incidence of caries. I do not rule out the possibility of some people reacting badly to fluoridation. However, some people react badly to penicillin. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to rule out the application of that medication, because it is beneficial to the majority.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to contribute to this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) on being able to debate this subject so unexpectedly. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) said that the issue was not clearcut and that it was not black or white. The issue will be mottled or brown if the Government side with the pro-fluoridators and legislate compulsorily to fluoridate water supplies.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton. I do not think that I shall tread on any bureaucratic toes if I say that he probably knows more about the subject than the Under-Secretary of State who is to reply to the debate. My hon. Friend probably knows more about it than many of the civil servants in the Department who have probably provided the Under-Secretary of State with a brief.
I had the privilege of sitting with my hon. Friend the Member for Burton on the Social Services and Employment Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee in the last Parliament. We carried out a lengthy inquiry into preventive medicine. Teeth and fluoridation took up much of our time. We heard conflicting evidence. My hon. Friend has presented a good argument for the Government's being careful about the stance that they take.
The Under-Secretary of State might use the pro-fluoridation argument. Evidence from highly respectable and reputable medical experts indicates that fluoride can be dangerous to humans in the long term. My hon. Friend said that a certain percentage of fluoride taken into

the body is permanently retained by the body. There is a strong case against the compulsory fluoridation of the public water supply.
I shall not argue tonight the libertarian cause that it is wrong to medicate the water supplies, because that would mean compulsory medication for everyone in this country. I believe that it is wrong, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester supports this argument to an extent in that he does not believe that the House should legislate on the compulsory wearing of seat belts. I played a part in that debate, 10 days or so ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton played an even greater and more important part in that debate.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]

Mr. Winterton: I was saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton played an important part in the debate on seat belts, and I am sure that he will do the same tomorrow.
I am fundamentally opposed to compulsory medication. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester will say that we already have certain chemical components in public water supplies. I agree with him. Of course we do. That makes it safe to drink. It does not seek to medicate everyone, a small percentage of whom may benefit.
The statistics relating to Birmingham quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton are pertinent. Statistics can prove anything. We can prove anything if we choose the right statistics. I am sure that I could present to the House or any other academic body an extremely good argument to support anything that I was putting forward by using statistics, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burton clearly illustrated.
Fluoride is an industrial waste. There is perhaps a hidden, faceless lobby that seeks to find a use for that industrial waste. Perhaps there is a profitable business in finding a use for it. I am happy to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester to develop his argument and


I await the reply of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about the voluntary use of fluoride.

Mr. Lawrence: It is not just that fluoride is an industrial waste; one-tenth of an ounce of fluoride kills immediately.

Mr. Winterton: I fully take the point made by my hon. Friend. Fluoride is a poison. I wonder how many people realise that. I fully support the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton put forward earlier; I believe that there is a direct connection between the imbibing of fluoride and the incidence of cancer. It is interesting that cancer is an increasing problem in modern society. I wonder whether there is a more direct or alarmist connection between the adding of fluoride to the public water supplies and the growing incidence of cancer than that which my hon. Friend the Member for Burton put forward? I do not want to labour the point, but I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton presented a dramatic or alarmist case. I believe that he gave the facts and figures that had been produced by reputable and respected people.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will give a constructive and considered reply and not just quote from a brief provided by those faceless men who advise him and trot out the same old statistics from the DHSS.
I say to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I believe that there is some form of conspiracy to try to foist upon the people of this country the compulsory medication of public water supplies. Successive Governments have toyed with this idea but because of the pressure of those of us who oppose them they have held back. I only hope that my hon. Friend will not be the one Minister to announce that the Government will support the compulsory fluoridation of all public water supplies in this country.
The evidence that my hon. Friend produced so extremely competently was compiled after lengthy work by many reputable people in the medical profession. What about the countries that have fluoridated their water supplies and have now terminated that practice? What about the states in the United States of

America and the countries within the European Community and elsewhere in Western Europe that previously fluoridated their public water supplies and have now terminated the practice? What about the mottling of teeth where fluoride has been applied? What about the mottling of teeth of those who have imbibed fairly large quantities of fluoride? All these questions must be answered.
I hope, too, that my hon. Friend will reply sensibly on the probable connection between fluoride and cancer and the damage that might be caused later in life because fluoride has been retained in the body and has perhaps contributed to the contracting or development of cancer. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester referred to the voluntary use of fluoride. If people wish to buy milk to which fluoride has been added, fair dos; I am in favour of that. That is a voluntary choice. The same applies to the taking of fluoride tablets or pills. Fluoride toothpaste is widely available.

Mr. Lawrence: Under the National Health Service.

Mr. Winterton: I do not know whether that is so, but I have used it. I have used it because it was a voluntary decision for me to make. I have three children. My oldest boy is now nearly l9½ years. He has only two minor fillings. That is because I have always advocated and encouraged the cleaning of teeth. In his early years I cleaned his teeth for him. He has always been taught to clean his teeth.
There are better ways of going about improving the dental health of the children and people of Britain than doing it compulsorily by fluoridating the public water supply. This is a matter of great importance. There is a great divide that extends beyond the two sides of the Chamber and exists between those who sit on the same Benches. We must have more dental health education. I say to my hon. Friend that he should not seek to introduce legislation compulsorily to add fluoride to the public water supply. If he does, my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and I will oppose him hook, line and sinker. We believe that it is fundamentally wrong and that the case has not been proved.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): This has been an interesting and long debate. I shall try to deal with as many of the issues that have been raised as I can. If I do not have time to deal with all the issues, I undertake to write to my hon. Friends to give them replies to the questions they have asked.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that this is a subject that has interested me for many years, and long before I became a Minister. I remember attending one or two meetings of a Back Bench committee on health while in Opposition that was concerned with this very subject. I do not approach it entirely reliant on the advice of civil servants. I spent some time in Opposition briefing myself on the subject.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) for giving me the opportunity of restating the Government's position on fluoridation, as explained in a debate in another place on 15 November 1979 and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in the debate on 23 January on the report of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) made a welcome contribution. He outlined the advantages of fluoridation. He was right to say that the area health authorities are in favour of fluoridation. In England, 84 of the 90 area health authorities have independently decided to fluoridate water supplies. There is a similar majority in Wales and Scotland. My hon. Friend asked me about alternative methods of fluoridation, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield.
For the greatest protective effect against dental decay, fluoride must be provided from birth during the years of tooth formation up to about 14 years. Other methods are possible such as fluoride tablets, which benefit the individual rather than the community, but experience has shown that the necessary regularity of administration for the first 14 years of life is seldom achieved. Fluoride in school milk would not be ingested during the first five years of life, which is an important period of tooth formation, nor

during school holidays. Moreover, some children do not like milk.
Salt has sometimes been suggested as a vehicle for fluoride. However, it is unsatisfactory for young children. Fluoride mouth rinses give much less benefit than fluoridation in relation to the resources required. Fluoride toothpaste, which now accounts for over 90 per cent. of toothpaste sales, has a useful complementary effect to that of fluoride in drinking water. Topical application—which I have had applied to my son—is available. However, I believe that it is not free on the NHS. One has to pay for it.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Health and I are about to undertake an active review of dental health policy. We shall look at these alternatives and discuss them with those concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield asked whether we had any plans for legislation. The Government have no plans to legislate on this subject. My hon. Friend referred to the work of the Expenditure Committee and to its conclusion. In contrast, a number of other bodies have also examined this subject. They have decided to support fluoridation. That includes the Royal College of Physicians, the British Medical Association, the British Dental Association, the Royal Society of Health, the World Health Organisation and, more recently, the Royal Commission on the National Health Service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton drew heavily on "Fluoridation News", issued by the West Midlands regional health authority. I hope he will accept that my Department has no direct responsibility for the West Midlands regional health authority. I shall draw its attention to his remarks.
I think I should first explain that fluoride occurs naturally in most water supplies, sometimes at a satisfactory level for the prevention of dental decay. Fluoridation consists merely of the adjustment to the optimum level for dental protection—one part per million in temperate climes—of the fluoride content of those water supplies that are deficient in it naturally. When water containing the optimum level of fluoride is consumed during the years of tooth formation, the protection conferred in childhood continues during adult life.
I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton was a member of the inquiry into preventive medicine carried out some years ago by the Social Services and Employment Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee of this House. The bodies which gave evidence to the Sub-Committee endorsed the efficacy and safety of fluoridation. They included the Royal College of Physicians, the British Dental Association, the British Medical Association and my Department. The Government continue to support their views today.
Fluoridation was proposed some 40 years ago because of observations by research workers of the better dental health of communities served by water supplies naturally containing about one part per million of fluoride. Contrary to suggestions made by opponents, the idea was proposed purely as a means of reducing the prevalence of dental decay, not only in individuals but in the entire community.
Studies from about 1945 onwards in the United States and Canada showed that consumption of fluoridated water in certain study areas, by comparison with low-fluoride control areas, led to a reduction in dental decay similar to that which had been observed in areas with an adequate level of fluoride naturally. For the best effect, fluoridated water had to be consumed from birth up to 14 years of age—that is, during the years of tooth formation.
On the recommendation of a mission sent by the then Government to North America, similar controlled studies were undertaken in the United Kingdom from 1955–56 onwards. Reports on the first five and 11 years of those studies, published in 1962 and 1969, showed substantial improvements in the dental health of children who had consumed fluoridated water from birth in the study areas. An expert research committee, set up to supervise the studies, concluded that it had shown fluoridation to be both safe and effective.
These and other studies in fluoridated areas of the United Kingdom could examine only the effects on the dental health of children, since fluoridation in those areas had not been in progress long enough for older people to have consumed fluoridated water from birth. How-

ever, studies of lifetime residents of areas with similar proportions of fluoride naturally in their water supplies have shown that a satisfactory intake of fluoride in childhood confers a protection against dental decay that persists during adult life.
Some years ago, the Royal College of Physicians, as an independent body concerned with public health, set up a committee to carry out a comprehensive survey of the evidence on the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. The Royal College published a report in 1976, concluding that fluoride in water, added or naturally present, over the years of tooth formation substantially reduced dental caries throughout life. There was, moreover, no sound evidence at all of harm to health.

Mr. Lawrence: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir G. Young: I wonder whether I may make progress, and I shall give way in a few moments. I must try to respond to the arguments put forward.
One chapter of the Royal College's report dealt with the alleged link between fluoridation and cancer and concluded that there was no evidence that fluoride increased the incidence or mortality of cancer in any organ. That, however, has been the main point of criticism by those who allege that fluoridation is not safe.

Mr. Lawrence: On that very point, is my hon. Friend aware that the Royal College of Physicians did not take into account the Burk-Yamouyannis studies?

Sir G. Young: The next line of my speech runs as follows. Two United States biochemists, Drs. Burk and Yamouyannis, have claimed that cancer mortality increased more in 10 fluoridated American cities than it did in 10 unfluoridated cities over the same period. That claim has been examined in much detail by cancer epidemiologists and medical statisticians here and in North America, who have independently concluded that there is no difference in the changes in cancer mortality in the two groups of cities when appropriate corrections are made for demographic factors that play an important part in the complex matter of cancer causation.
Much is made of some small corrections needed in the results obtained by these experts, but these occurred through slight transcription errors, which happened when the published national statistics were collated for their use. As I have said, their statistical analyses were conducted independently, and the corrections that they made—and published—did not affect their conclusions.
It is entirely defensible to use as basic data statistics collected in that way and, despite suggestions to the contrary, this is quite different from accepting another scientist's experimental results.
Drs. Burk and Yamouyannis have since announced the results of further analyses, although without necessary supporting evidence at certain critical points.
If, as my hon. Friend said, Dr. Yamouyannis yesterday described fluoridation as the greatest fraud this century, at best he was mischievous and at worst he has caused quite needless concern.
Dr. Burk has also re-examined data published in a 1974 paper from Oxford university about differences in cancer incidence in various organs between certain fluoridated areas and certain similar control areas and between sets of areas with varying levels of fluoride naturally in their water supplies. I understand that differences in the Oxford paper could have arisen by chance or because of difficulties in the selection of adequate control areas and do not indicate an association between cancer incidence and fluoride in drinking water, whether present naturally or artificially.
Moreover, Dr. Burk has attempted to show from these and other figures that cancer mortality has risen more in Birmingham since fluoridation than in Manchester and other unfluoridated British cities. However, I am advised that he has selected figures from the Oxford study that tend to support his case and that he has not taken account of appropriate demographic factors. I understand that, while the increase in cancer mortality may be greater in Birmingham since fluoridation than it was in Manchester, it was less than in unfluoridated parts of the West Midlands. Moreover, the increase in cancer mortality was greater in certain other unfluoridated cities.
Perhaps it is relevant here to recall what the Royal College of Physicians' report said on the subject of Birmingham, since my hon. Friend mentioned it. That report considered allegations that the cancer death rate had risen unduly in Birmingham since fluoridation started there in 1964. It pointed out, by reference to the Registrar-General's Statistical Reviews of England and Wales, that mortality from cancer, and from leukaemia in particular, had not increased in Birmingham relative to low-fluoride parts of the same area. Slight increases had occurred in both, but these were greater in the low fluoride areas. The chapter concluded:
There is no evidence that fluoride increases the incidence or mortality of cancer in any organ.
The college considered that the enormous body of information bearing on the subject of fluoride and health amply justified the conclusion that there was no evidence that the consumption of water containing about one part per million of water in a temperate climate was associated with any harmful effect.
No other studies carried out by appropriately qualified persons and published in scientific journals of good repute support the allegation of a link between fluoridation and cancer. Moreover, the suggestion that fluoride is a carcinogen is not supported by reviews by experts in this and other countries and reviews that have taken full account of animal and other laboratory studies, as well as epidemiological studies of cancer in several countries. No properly authenticated tests have supported the conclusion that fluoride salts as used in fluoridation are a mutagenic hazard to man.
Perhaps I can now deal with the question of an inquiry by my Department into these matters. Press reports last year were wrong in suggesting that Ministers had instituted a formal inquiry. However, as my noble Friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne said in another place on 15 November 1979, this does not mean that we shall not continue to examine carefully any properly supported claims that may be made as to the safety or efficacy of fluoridation, even though we are at present satisfied on both counts. Indeed, following approaches to my Department by Drs. Burk and Yamouyannis, my


professional advisers have been in correspondence with them and they have recently received answers to a number of questions about both their published and unpublished work. They will be studied with care and, as is always the case with a matter of this kind, advice will be obtained from the academic experts who regularly advise my Department, to the extent that it may prove necesssary.
It was suggested during the debate that fluoride was a poison. Fluoride is a natural substance and it occurs widely in the diet and most water supplies. In some water supplies, it occurs naturally at around the level of one part per million used in fluoridation. Fluoride, like many other items in the diet such as salt, iron and vitamin D, would be toxic if taken in great excess. However, at a level of one part of fluoride per million parts of water it cannot be considered poisonous.
Those opposed to fluoridation have pressed for a formal inquiry, and even for a suspension of our efforts to encourage fluoridation. The Government are clear that that would be unjustified. No a priori case that there is a cancer hazard has been established. In the past, Drs. Burk and Yamouyannis have been prepared to advance arguments based, for instance, on the use of figures which take no account of demographic differences between populations or on the selection of results which tend to favour their case, which receive no credence in usual scientific circles. Their more recent, and somewhat more sophisticated, published work contains notable omissions. Much of their case depends on claims to an American court, unbacked by publications. The material that has now been provided may repair some of these omissions. It will be examined objectively and in detail. The result of the study will come before Ministers in accordance with normal procedures. But, it would be quite wrong to anticipate that their claims will in the end prove to be justified.
I should like also to refer to the case brought by local residents before the Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to require a water authority to stop fluoridation in parts of Pittsburgh and some outlying districts. The judge, sitting alone, said he was "compellingly convinced" of the plaintiffs' evidence, based largely on claims by

Drs. Burk and Yamouyannis of a link between fluoridation and cancer. He therefore issued a preliminary decree until the court held a final hearing or until the matter was dealt with by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.
Although the court's jurisdiction is still the subject of an appeal, the Department of Environmental Resources has considered the evidence given in the court but has, nevertheless, directed that the water authority should continue to fluoridate. Fluoridation also continues in the rest of Pittsburgh, where it began in 1952.
Perhaps I could say a word about the position in Canada, since it was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton. Fluoridation began in Canada in 1945. Of the total population of 18 million with piped water, 46 per cent.—8·3 million—at present received fluoridated water. The decision to fluoridate rests with individual communities. On the basis of a preliminary report, the new Quebec Government decided to suspend implementation of their predecessors' Bill which would have required communities to fluoridate. The report was based on the alleged fluoride-cancer link, although the Canadian Government hold to the view in their 1977 report, based on a detailed study, that no such link exists. The so-called "moratorium" does not, however, prevent other Quebec communities from fluoridating, although those are relatively small, because much of the population of the province is concentrated in Montreal. At present, fluoridation covers 14·4 per cent. of the Quebec population supplied with piped water.
The Canadian Public Health Association, with the assistance of Health and Welfare, Canada, undertook a study of fluoride in drinking water, and its final report, published in 1979, recommended that the optimum concentration of fluoride in Canadian drinking water should be established at 1·2 parts per million.
Perhaps I can also deal with the position in other countries abroad. Although the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland are at present the only EEC countries with fluoridation, the reasons why various Continental countries have not adopted it are not always completely clear. I understand that fluoridation had to stop in the Netherlands—where it had


been adopted to a considerable extent—because of a Supreme Court ruling that a separate unfluoridated supply should be provided for those who wished it. This, of course, was impracticable on technical grounds. The measure continues on a substantial scale in the United States, Australia and New Zealand.
Finally, as my right hon. Friend indicated last January, it remains the Government's view—like that of their predecessors for many years—that extensive trials throughout the world have shown that fluoridation safely and effectively reduces the prevalence of dental caries—one of the commonest diseases and one which has lifetime consequences for general and dental health.
Of course, my advisers will be examining figures of cancer incidence in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas of the country from the usual sources, alongside the material provided by Drs. Burk and Yamouyannis. All this information is rigorously analysed by experts in my Department who are fully conscious of their responsibility for public health and are supported by the best independent advice that is available. They are satisfied that the current policies are right, and Ministers in the Department fully endorse their views.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o'clock.